Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
29 Aug 11
20:54
Joined:
Date Joined:
06 Jul 07
No tin foil hat here, just lined my whole bedroom with it. Join me for an hour of hilarious Straw manning by the Beeb. Can't imagine this will be anything other than another attempt to deride anything outside the official theory, whilst attempting to appear like a conspiracists view.
Show More
OK AG ,I will take back the mental bit and settle for you and a few other fellow travellers being simpletons .
btw the wings of the passenger planes flown into the buildings by Islamic Fascists were made of the same material as the rest of the American Airlines passenger planes.
btw the wings of the passenger planes flown into the buildings by Islamic Fascists were made of the same material as the rest of the American Airlines passenger planes.
From an email I received.
Do you remember 1987.....
Thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information.........
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator, 'Did you not recently spend close to$60,000 for a home security system?'
Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little excessive?'
'No, sir,' continued Ollie.
'No? And why not?' the senator asked.
'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'
'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.
'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.
'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'
'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name,but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked.
'Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.
'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.
'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that anassassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore!
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993,Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center . This was reported
by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
Do you remember 1987.....
Thought you might be interested in this forgotten bit of information.........
It was 1987! At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration.
There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!
He was being drilled by a senator, 'Did you not recently spend close to$60,000 for a home security system?'
Ollie replied, 'Yes, I did, Sir.'
The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, 'Isn't that just a little excessive?'
'No, sir,' continued Ollie.
'No? And why not?' the senator asked.
'Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir.'
'Threatened? By whom?' the senator questioned.
'By a terrorist, sir' Ollie answered.
'Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?'
'His name is Osama bin Laden, sir' Ollie replied.
At this point the senator tried to repeat the name,but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?' the senator asked.
'Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of', Ollie answered.
'And what do you recommend we do about him?' asked the senator.
'Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that anassassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth.'
The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.
By the way, that senator was Al Gore!
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993,Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center . This was reported
by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
Epic
I think your remark of "simpletons" is a bit of a cheek tbh.
Your fellow travellers,as you put it,are the religious nut,Sunset Cristo and the malevolent super-ego Pandorica.You are clearly a bit dim and naive,so,as I say,you have a bit of a cheek.
I think your remark of "simpletons" is a bit of a cheek tbh.
Your fellow travellers,as you put it,are the religious nut,Sunset Cristo and the malevolent super-ego Pandorica.You are clearly a bit dim and naive,so,as I say,you have a bit of a cheek.
Obviously the non Simpleton Epicurean can answer this.
If a massive C beam or H beam steel girder, let's say, was travelling at the same speed toward the wing of a plane and hit it, do you think the steel beam would bend around the wing of the plane then break or do you think that steel beam would smash the wing to smithereens?
If a massive C beam or H beam steel girder, let's say, was travelling at the same speed toward the wing of a plane and hit it, do you think the steel beam would bend around the wing of the plane then break or do you think that steel beam would smash the wing to smithereens?
I stand by my statement .The fact that I find Sunset C and his religious beliefs also ridiculous is irrelevant .Pan has the same opinion as myself and your description is plain wrong.
AG I don't believe anyone has flown a passenger plane at great speed into a building to find out what would happen.
Aluminium moving at 500 mph v Steel H/C Beams.
Which one bends first?
How would you price it up Epicurean?
Which one bends first?
How would you price it up Epicurean?
epicurean
12 Sep 11 19:38
You answer my questions and I will look at the video.
epicurean, do you have any response, rational or otherwise, to the video? Ad hominem attacks are so unconvincing.
12 Sep 11 19:38
You answer my questions and I will look at the video.
epicurean, do you have any response, rational or otherwise, to the video? Ad hominem attacks are so unconvincing.
I just put in a lay bet and someone's taken all of it bar £9.11.
Spooky eh?
Spooky eh?
ooO{Alpha Centauri}Ooo
12 Sep 11 21:40
From an email I received.
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993,Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center . This was reported
by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
That is a false report based on mistaken identity according to:
.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/atta.asp
12 Sep 11 21:40
From an email I received.
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993,Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center . This was reported
by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
That is a false report based on mistaken identity according to:
.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/atta.asp
and so is the Ollie North - Osama warning story:
.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp
.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.asp
* a false report, that is.
Here is a quote from that page:
"So no, Oliver North didn't warn us back in 1987 about Osama bin Laden's "potential threat to the security of the world" or suggest that bin Laden be hunted down by "an assassin team," nor was he given the brush-off by a clueless senator "who disagreed with this approach." Eventually, Col. North drafted his own response to this piece of misinformation:
FROM THE DESK OF LTCOL OLIVER L. NORTH (USMC) RET.
NOVEMBER 28, 2001
OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND E-MAILS FROM EVERY STATE IN THE U.S. AND 13 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE ORIGINATOR PURPORTS TO HAVE RECENTLY VIEWED A VIDEOTAPE OF MY SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN 1987.
A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS IS ATTACHED BELOW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON'T HAVE IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHO SAW WHAT VIDEO "AT UNC." (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) BUT, FOR THE RECORD, HERE'S WHAT I DO KNOW:
1. IT WAS THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL, JOHN NIELDS, NOT A SENATOR WHO WAS DOING THE QUESTIONING.
2. THE SECURITY SYSTEM, INSTALLED AT MY HOME, JUST BEFORE I MADE A VERY SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, COST, ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE, $16K, NOT $60K.
3. THE TERRORIST WHO THREATENED TO KILL ME IN 1986, JUST BEFORE THAT SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, WAS NOT USAMA BIN LADEN, IT WAS ABU NIDAL (WHO WORKS FOR THE LIBYANS — NOT THE TALIBAN AND NOT IN AFGHANISTAN).
4. I NEVER SAID I WAS AFRAID OF ANYBODY. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET ABU NIDAL ON EQUAL TERMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BUT THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO HAVE HIM OR HIS OPERATIVES MEET MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ON HIS TERMS.
5. I DID SAY THAT THE TERRORISTS INTERCEPTED BY THE FBI ON THE WAY TO MY HOUSE IN FEB. 87 TO KILL MY WIFE, CHILDREN AND ME WERE LIBYANS, DISPATCHED FROM THE PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE FOR LIBYAN STUDENTS IN MCLEAN, VIRGINIA.
6. AND I DID SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MOVED MY FAMILY OUT OF OUR HOME TO A MILITARY BASE (CAMP LEJEUNE, NC) UNTIL THEY COULD DISPATCH MORE THAN 30 AGENTS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THOSE TERRORISTS (BECAUSE A LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDGE HAD ALLOWED THE LYBIAN ASSASSINS TO POST BOND AND THEY FLED).
7. AND, FYI: THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS REMAINED AT OUR HOME UNTIL I RETIRED FROM THE MARINES AND WAS NO LONGER A "GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL." BY THEN, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT MORE THAN $2M PROTECTING THE NORTH FAMILY. THE TERRORISTS SENT TO KILL US WERE NEVER RE-APPREHENDED.
SEMPER FIDELIS,
OLIVER L. NORTH "
It's always worth checking these things out before lending them any credence.
Here is a quote from that page:
"So no, Oliver North didn't warn us back in 1987 about Osama bin Laden's "potential threat to the security of the world" or suggest that bin Laden be hunted down by "an assassin team," nor was he given the brush-off by a clueless senator "who disagreed with this approach." Eventually, Col. North drafted his own response to this piece of misinformation:
FROM THE DESK OF LTCOL OLIVER L. NORTH (USMC) RET.
NOVEMBER 28, 2001
OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL THOUSAND E-MAILS FROM EVERY STATE IN THE U.S. AND 13 FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE ORIGINATOR PURPORTS TO HAVE RECENTLY VIEWED A VIDEOTAPE OF MY SWORN TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN 1987.
A COPY OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS IS ATTACHED BELOW. AS YOU WILL NOTE, THE ORIGINATOR ATTRIBUTES TO ME CERTAIN STATEMENTS REGARDING USAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE SIMPLY INACCURATE. THOUGH I WOULD LIKE TO CLAIM THE GIFT OF PROPHESY, I DON'T HAVE IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHO SAW WHAT VIDEO "AT UNC." (OR ANYWHERE ELSE) BUT, FOR THE RECORD, HERE'S WHAT I DO KNOW:
1. IT WAS THE COMMITTEE COUNSEL, JOHN NIELDS, NOT A SENATOR WHO WAS DOING THE QUESTIONING.
2. THE SECURITY SYSTEM, INSTALLED AT MY HOME, JUST BEFORE I MADE A VERY SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, COST, ACCORDING TO THE COMMITTEE, $16K, NOT $60K.
3. THE TERRORIST WHO THREATENED TO KILL ME IN 1986, JUST BEFORE THAT SECRET TRIP TO TEHRAN, WAS NOT USAMA BIN LADEN, IT WAS ABU NIDAL (WHO WORKS FOR THE LIBYANS — NOT THE TALIBAN AND NOT IN AFGHANISTAN).
4. I NEVER SAID I WAS AFRAID OF ANYBODY. I DID SAY THAT I WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET ABU NIDAL ON EQUAL TERMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD BUT THAT I WAS UNWILLING TO HAVE HIM OR HIS OPERATIVES MEET MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ON HIS TERMS.
5. I DID SAY THAT THE TERRORISTS INTERCEPTED BY THE FBI ON THE WAY TO MY HOUSE IN FEB. 87 TO KILL MY WIFE, CHILDREN AND ME WERE LIBYANS, DISPATCHED FROM THE PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE FOR LIBYAN STUDENTS IN MCLEAN, VIRGINIA.
6. AND I DID SAY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD MOVED MY FAMILY OUT OF OUR HOME TO A MILITARY BASE (CAMP LEJEUNE, NC) UNTIL THEY COULD DISPATCH MORE THAN 30 AGENTS TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THOSE TERRORISTS (BECAUSE A LIBERAL FEDERAL JUDGE HAD ALLOWED THE LYBIAN ASSASSINS TO POST BOND AND THEY FLED).
7. AND, FYI: THOSE FEDERAL AGENTS REMAINED AT OUR HOME UNTIL I RETIRED FROM THE MARINES AND WAS NO LONGER A "GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL." BY THEN, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAD SPENT MORE THAN $2M PROTECTING THE NORTH FAMILY. THE TERRORISTS SENT TO KILL US WERE NEVER RE-APPREHENDED.
SEMPER FIDELIS,
OLIVER L. NORTH "
It's always worth checking these things out before lending them any credence.
yep slarty, most of the sensational emails are bs
If a massive C beam or H beam steel girder, let's say, was travelling at the same speed toward the wing of a plane and hit it, do you think the steel beam would bend around the wing of the plane then break or do you think that steel beam would smash the wing to smithereens?
If it were possible to fly a beam into the wing of a plane it would smash the wing to pieces. The example you give is not really an equivalent one to a plane hitting the WTC.
A box of tissues will collapse if you stand on it. Someone’s head will not. But if that box of tissues is on the parcel shelf of a car doing 70mph and it meets an object that causes very rapid deceleration, the box of tissues takes on the force of something like a house brick dropped on your toe. If it hit a passenger in front it would cause serious damage, despite being made of just cardboard and paper. Think back to the Columbia space shuttle, where a piece of foam from the fuel tank made a hole in the wing that caused the disaster.
The physics of objects in motion changes their characteristics such that you cannot just make an assumption that 'aluminium wings' (though clearly there is much more to the structure, and therefore mass, of a wing than just an envelope of aluminium) wouldn't have a large effect on fixed steel beams when hit at high speeds.
If it were possible to fly a beam into the wing of a plane it would smash the wing to pieces. The example you give is not really an equivalent one to a plane hitting the WTC.
A box of tissues will collapse if you stand on it. Someone’s head will not. But if that box of tissues is on the parcel shelf of a car doing 70mph and it meets an object that causes very rapid deceleration, the box of tissues takes on the force of something like a house brick dropped on your toe. If it hit a passenger in front it would cause serious damage, despite being made of just cardboard and paper. Think back to the Columbia space shuttle, where a piece of foam from the fuel tank made a hole in the wing that caused the disaster.
The physics of objects in motion changes their characteristics such that you cannot just make an assumption that 'aluminium wings' (though clearly there is much more to the structure, and therefore mass, of a wing than just an envelope of aluminium) wouldn't have a large effect on fixed steel beams when hit at high speeds.
Thanks Boggle.
An insightful answer. Appreciate it.
An insightful answer. Appreciate it.
bjt wrote Sunset Cristo. You are taking up a lot of space, but you aren't actually saying anything. All you have said so far, is "prove it"
yes still waiting for the evidence.
, the evidence proves the official story and did you see the show on the BBC.
yes did you watch the bbc3 program,why don't you refute it?
People have provided more proof to the contrary of the official story than the believers and the people trying to control them
you mena this so called proof that I have debunked point by point.
, but because mainstream media has an agenda in what they want people to see,
what and Ct's don't have an agenda?
only one side is shown.
no both sides are shown, the BBC3 program for example.
The people, including very high up people in the know that go on record, aren't shown anywhere mainstream and as such you overlook this.
which people?
Here is a question for you. The post quoting Emily Church, what did you make of it? Here we have somebody directly involved in one of your "it is proof because it was on the BBC" shows
I have never said this, this is a strawman.
, trying to find the truth about what happened on 9/11. She feels the show was a complete sham designed not to include the wrong questions that may lead people away from the official story.
of course she does.
She knows the official story is a crock of ****, and knows this because of the "evidence" to the contrary.
she knows no such thing, she believes it's crap.
Just because something is shown on tv doesn't mean you should believe it.
of course not , I have never said this ,another strawman.neither should you believe everything you see on youtube.
Of these 100+ eyewitnesses that saw the plane hitting or about to hit the pentagon, where is the vision of it?
there is none,at least none that we know off.
We have Washington DC, the capital of the US, with the White House, the Pentagon, we have 2 planes that have crashed into the WTC, a confirmed hijacking of a plane heading to Washington, yet nobody has vision of the plane?
vision of the plane, you mean film?
Nobody thought to video it, take a picture of it? They had warning it was coming, they knew they were 1 of 2 targets, yet there is no vision of the plane?
even if they did you would ignore it or say it was faked,for those that don't want to believe no amount of evidence is ever enough.100+ plus witnesses and plane wreckege found,which you ignore.
Fact is, I don't know too much about that point so I generally choose to talk about what I feel strongly about, but it seems strange that forewarned people didn't have the foresight to capture images of a plane heading into a building where they worked.
did they know it was heading towards the Pentagon? has this been proven? there was alot of confusion that day.
I bet if a dog walked past and started humping somebodies leg they would all have it on camera, but a plane hitting their building, no?
so you think if something isn't caught on film ,it didn't happen,very strange logic.
You can have all your eyewitnesses that you like, but what you can't do is suggest a number of eyewitnesses that saw something different. Just because the media show one thing, doesn't mean that is the only thing people have "witnessed"..
they all saw a plane, no one saw a missile,not rocket science is it?
And please don't misquote me again, I have never mentioned phones before. You are just grouping everything together again to try to help your argument.
ok I'm sorry if you didn't mention phones.
And also, please stop with your big quote posts unless you actually plan on saying something in them. As of yet, you have said very little, yet take up pages on the thread.
this is your opinion and you have no evidence to back it up.I will keep refuting you and other CT's point by point, thank you very much.
yes still waiting for the evidence.
, the evidence proves the official story and did you see the show on the BBC.
yes did you watch the bbc3 program,why don't you refute it?
People have provided more proof to the contrary of the official story than the believers and the people trying to control them
you mena this so called proof that I have debunked point by point.
, but because mainstream media has an agenda in what they want people to see,
what and Ct's don't have an agenda?
only one side is shown.
no both sides are shown, the BBC3 program for example.
The people, including very high up people in the know that go on record, aren't shown anywhere mainstream and as such you overlook this.
which people?
Here is a question for you. The post quoting Emily Church, what did you make of it? Here we have somebody directly involved in one of your "it is proof because it was on the BBC" shows
I have never said this, this is a strawman.
, trying to find the truth about what happened on 9/11. She feels the show was a complete sham designed not to include the wrong questions that may lead people away from the official story.
of course she does.
She knows the official story is a crock of ****, and knows this because of the "evidence" to the contrary.
she knows no such thing, she believes it's crap.
Just because something is shown on tv doesn't mean you should believe it.
of course not , I have never said this ,another strawman.neither should you believe everything you see on youtube.
Of these 100+ eyewitnesses that saw the plane hitting or about to hit the pentagon, where is the vision of it?
there is none,at least none that we know off.
We have Washington DC, the capital of the US, with the White House, the Pentagon, we have 2 planes that have crashed into the WTC, a confirmed hijacking of a plane heading to Washington, yet nobody has vision of the plane?
vision of the plane, you mean film?
Nobody thought to video it, take a picture of it? They had warning it was coming, they knew they were 1 of 2 targets, yet there is no vision of the plane?
even if they did you would ignore it or say it was faked,for those that don't want to believe no amount of evidence is ever enough.100+ plus witnesses and plane wreckege found,which you ignore.
Fact is, I don't know too much about that point so I generally choose to talk about what I feel strongly about, but it seems strange that forewarned people didn't have the foresight to capture images of a plane heading into a building where they worked.
did they know it was heading towards the Pentagon? has this been proven? there was alot of confusion that day.
I bet if a dog walked past and started humping somebodies leg they would all have it on camera, but a plane hitting their building, no?
so you think if something isn't caught on film ,it didn't happen,very strange logic.
You can have all your eyewitnesses that you like, but what you can't do is suggest a number of eyewitnesses that saw something different. Just because the media show one thing, doesn't mean that is the only thing people have "witnessed"..
they all saw a plane, no one saw a missile,not rocket science is it?
And please don't misquote me again, I have never mentioned phones before. You are just grouping everything together again to try to help your argument.
ok I'm sorry if you didn't mention phones.
And also, please stop with your big quote posts unless you actually plan on saying something in them. As of yet, you have said very little, yet take up pages on the thread.
this is your opinion and you have no evidence to back it up.I will keep refuting you and other CT's point by point, thank you very much.
brigust wrote Who gives a flying c r a p what Sunset Christo wrote.
He/She just ruins perfectly good discussion forums while adding absolutely nothing to the debate
another silly post by brigust.
He/She just ruins perfectly good discussion forums while adding absolutely nothing to the debate
another silly post by brigust.
brigust wrote Who gives a flying c r a p what Sunset Christo wrote.
He/She just ruins perfectly good discussion forums while adding absolutely nothing to the debate
a spot on observation by brigust.
He/She just ruins perfectly good discussion forums while adding absolutely nothing to the debate
a spot on observation by brigust.
Of course,the Greatest Ever Irony,here on chit-chat,is the fact that Sunset is The Chit-Chatter Who Has Posted The Most Ever Replies Asking For Evidence,while believing in God.
Ok Cristo, here is a post you will recognise.
Sunset Cristo
13 Sep 11 14:23 Joined: 21 Jul 07 | Topic/replies: 5,489 | Blogger: Sunset Cristo's blog
bjt wrote Sunset Cristo. You are taking up a lot of space, but you aren't actually saying anything. All you have said so far, is "prove it"
yes still waiting for the evidence.
---
The covered up evidence? And see below....
-------
, the evidence proves the official story and did you see the show on the BBC.
yes did you watch the bbc3 program,why don't you refute it?
---
Where did you get this quote from me, I couldn't see it?
And no I didn't watch the show, that is why I am not refuting it. I don't just wildly refute something I have no opinion on.
-------
People have provided more proof to the contrary of the official story than the believers and the people trying to control them
you mena this so called proof that I have debunked point by point.
---
I am yet to see you debunk anything. Are you sure you didn't forget to type something? Saying prove it, somebody said they saw it so it happened.
The US military had witnesses of Jessica Lynchs' rescue which they were happy to put on record, yet Jessica Lynch confirms that never happened. Yeah witnesses always see what they say. Hmmm.
-------
, but because mainstream media has an agenda in what they want people to see,
what and Ct's don't have an agenda?
---
So this is you debunking that the media have an agenda? Hmm. Looks to me like you failed to dispute this fact for some strange reason. Could it be that you already know it is true and wish to simply reply with nothing so later you can claim to have debunked it?
A "CTs" agenda is simply to find out the truth. Pretty morally unacceptable agenda that one right? Hmmm
-------
only one side is shown.
no both sides are shown, the BBC3 program for example.
---
Didn't see it. From what I have seen on this thread others saw it and saw it completely differently than you claim.
-------
The people, including very high up people in the know that go on record, aren't shown anywhere mainstream and as such you overlook this.
which people?
---
The people mentioned previously in this thread, and more. The people you choose to wish to not remember so you don't have to dispute it get others wasting their time trying to find quotes on your behalf.
Not surprised you don't know who though, that is the whole point. Get it? They aren't getting air time because they tell a different truth to the "official" one.
-------
Here is a question for you. The post quoting Emily Church, what did you make of it? Here we have somebody directly involved in one of your "it is proof because it was on the BBC" shows
I have never said this, this is a strawman.
---
no both sides are shown, the BBC3 program for example.......
Your direct quote from your last post for example.
-------
, trying to find the truth about what happened on 9/11. She feels the show was a complete sham designed not to include the wrong questions that may lead people away from the official story.
of course she does.
She knows the official story is a crock of ****, and knows this because of the "evidence" to the contrary.
she knows no such thing, she believes it's crap.
---
She believes she knows based on all the evidence available to her. Just because you don't believe what she says doesn't mean she doesn't know. Who are you to say what she knows when she has access to more information and people than you do to give her a clearler version of what happened?
-------
Just because something is shown on tv doesn't mean you should believe it.
of course not , I have never said this ,another strawman.neither should you believe everything you see on youtube.
---
I don't believe so. You are suggesting that I am quoting you when I am doing no such thing. I merely made a statement.
If that is your logic, then your reply of implying that I said I believe on Youtube has already been "debunked" by you in your reply to me.
-------
Of these 100+ eyewitnesses that saw the plane hitting or about to hit the pentagon, where is the vision of it?
there is none,at least none that we know off.
We have Washington DC, the capital of the US, with the White House, the Pentagon, we have 2 planes that have crashed into the WTC, a confirmed hijacking of a plane heading to Washington, yet nobody has vision of the plane?
vision of the plane, you mean film?
Nobody thought to video it, take a picture of it? They had warning it was coming, they knew they were 1 of 2 targets, yet there is no vision of the plane?
even if they did you would ignore it or say it was faked,for those that don't want to believe no amount of evidence is ever enough.100+ plus witnesses and plane wreckege found,which you ignore.
---
I would choose to ignore a non existant video? It is non existant for a reason. I certainly wouldn't choose to ignore a video of a plane heading into the pentagon. The 5 frame "official proof" certainly doesn't show a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. 100 witnesses that saw a 757 plane hitting the building? They could have easily found plane wreckage if there was another aircraft used which is one of the theories. They only claimed to have found some plane wreckage, as the rest of it "inside the Pentagon" incenarted, yet eyewitness reports say they found luggage inside the pentagon. Must get the brand, sounds like they should start building planes out of the luggage material.
-------
Fact is, I don't know too much about that point so I generally choose to talk about what I feel strongly about, but it seems strange that forewarned people didn't have the foresight to capture images of a plane heading into a building where they worked.
did they know it was heading towards the Pentagon? has this been proven? there was alot of confusion that day.
---
Did you read the timeline?
-------
I bet if a dog walked past and started humping somebodies leg they would all have it on camera, but a plane hitting their building, no?
so you think if something isn't caught on film ,it didn't happen,very strange logic.
---
No, I am suggesting that if America was under attack, reports of a plane hijacking heading towards Washington that somebody would have got some vision of it.
-------
You can have all your eyewitnesses that you like, but what you can't do is suggest a number of eyewitnesses that saw something different. Just because the media show one thing, doesn't mean that is the only thing people have "witnessed"..
they all saw a plane, no one saw a missile,not rocket science is it?
---
Oh dear, is this a real comment? It is not rocket science is it? You certainly haven't refuted my post with your response. Yes, they are showing people claiming to have witnessed a plane. No they aren't showing anybody else. Just because there is no vision of people witnessing a missile or different plane doesn't mean they don't exist right. Very strange logic you will call that, just look up to the last quote.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/41485 Have a listen to this audio of a lady 35-40 feet from the impact and her version of what she saw, what she didn't say, and what she wasn't prepared to lie about when directed to do so. Strangely enough, she wasn't interviewed. Hmmm Keep your eyewitnesses, people doing their job as directed does not mean they witnessed anything.
-------
And also, please stop with your big quote posts unless you actually plan on saying something in them. As of yet, you have said very little, yet take up pages on the thread.
this is your opinion and you have no evidence to back it up.I will keep refuting you and other CT's point by point, thank you very much.
---
But you are saying the same thing over and over. Why not just quote a whole post and post the one reply rather than wasting all your time quoting every point and using your single reply.
Sunset Cristo
13 Sep 11 14:23 Joined: 21 Jul 07 | Topic/replies: 5,489 | Blogger: Sunset Cristo's blog
bjt wrote Sunset Cristo. You are taking up a lot of space, but you aren't actually saying anything. All you have said so far, is "prove it"
yes still waiting for the evidence.
---
The covered up evidence? And see below....
-------
, the evidence proves the official story and did you see the show on the BBC.
yes did you watch the bbc3 program,why don't you refute it?
---
Where did you get this quote from me, I couldn't see it?
And no I didn't watch the show, that is why I am not refuting it. I don't just wildly refute something I have no opinion on.
-------
People have provided more proof to the contrary of the official story than the believers and the people trying to control them
you mena this so called proof that I have debunked point by point.
---
I am yet to see you debunk anything. Are you sure you didn't forget to type something? Saying prove it, somebody said they saw it so it happened.
The US military had witnesses of Jessica Lynchs' rescue which they were happy to put on record, yet Jessica Lynch confirms that never happened. Yeah witnesses always see what they say. Hmmm.
-------
, but because mainstream media has an agenda in what they want people to see,
what and Ct's don't have an agenda?
---
So this is you debunking that the media have an agenda? Hmm. Looks to me like you failed to dispute this fact for some strange reason. Could it be that you already know it is true and wish to simply reply with nothing so later you can claim to have debunked it?
A "CTs" agenda is simply to find out the truth. Pretty morally unacceptable agenda that one right? Hmmm
-------
only one side is shown.
no both sides are shown, the BBC3 program for example.
---
Didn't see it. From what I have seen on this thread others saw it and saw it completely differently than you claim.
-------
The people, including very high up people in the know that go on record, aren't shown anywhere mainstream and as such you overlook this.
which people?
---
The people mentioned previously in this thread, and more. The people you choose to wish to not remember so you don't have to dispute it get others wasting their time trying to find quotes on your behalf.
Not surprised you don't know who though, that is the whole point. Get it? They aren't getting air time because they tell a different truth to the "official" one.
-------
Here is a question for you. The post quoting Emily Church, what did you make of it? Here we have somebody directly involved in one of your "it is proof because it was on the BBC" shows
I have never said this, this is a strawman.
---
no both sides are shown, the BBC3 program for example.......
Your direct quote from your last post for example.
-------
, trying to find the truth about what happened on 9/11. She feels the show was a complete sham designed not to include the wrong questions that may lead people away from the official story.
of course she does.
She knows the official story is a crock of ****, and knows this because of the "evidence" to the contrary.
she knows no such thing, she believes it's crap.
---
She believes she knows based on all the evidence available to her. Just because you don't believe what she says doesn't mean she doesn't know. Who are you to say what she knows when she has access to more information and people than you do to give her a clearler version of what happened?
-------
Just because something is shown on tv doesn't mean you should believe it.
of course not , I have never said this ,another strawman.neither should you believe everything you see on youtube.
---
I don't believe so. You are suggesting that I am quoting you when I am doing no such thing. I merely made a statement.
If that is your logic, then your reply of implying that I said I believe on Youtube has already been "debunked" by you in your reply to me.
-------
Of these 100+ eyewitnesses that saw the plane hitting or about to hit the pentagon, where is the vision of it?
there is none,at least none that we know off.
We have Washington DC, the capital of the US, with the White House, the Pentagon, we have 2 planes that have crashed into the WTC, a confirmed hijacking of a plane heading to Washington, yet nobody has vision of the plane?
vision of the plane, you mean film?
Nobody thought to video it, take a picture of it? They had warning it was coming, they knew they were 1 of 2 targets, yet there is no vision of the plane?
even if they did you would ignore it or say it was faked,for those that don't want to believe no amount of evidence is ever enough.100+ plus witnesses and plane wreckege found,which you ignore.
---
I would choose to ignore a non existant video? It is non existant for a reason. I certainly wouldn't choose to ignore a video of a plane heading into the pentagon. The 5 frame "official proof" certainly doesn't show a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. 100 witnesses that saw a 757 plane hitting the building? They could have easily found plane wreckage if there was another aircraft used which is one of the theories. They only claimed to have found some plane wreckage, as the rest of it "inside the Pentagon" incenarted, yet eyewitness reports say they found luggage inside the pentagon. Must get the brand, sounds like they should start building planes out of the luggage material.
-------
Fact is, I don't know too much about that point so I generally choose to talk about what I feel strongly about, but it seems strange that forewarned people didn't have the foresight to capture images of a plane heading into a building where they worked.
did they know it was heading towards the Pentagon? has this been proven? there was alot of confusion that day.
---
Did you read the timeline?
-------
I bet if a dog walked past and started humping somebodies leg they would all have it on camera, but a plane hitting their building, no?
so you think if something isn't caught on film ,it didn't happen,very strange logic.
---
No, I am suggesting that if America was under attack, reports of a plane hijacking heading towards Washington that somebody would have got some vision of it.
-------
You can have all your eyewitnesses that you like, but what you can't do is suggest a number of eyewitnesses that saw something different. Just because the media show one thing, doesn't mean that is the only thing people have "witnessed"..
they all saw a plane, no one saw a missile,not rocket science is it?
---
Oh dear, is this a real comment? It is not rocket science is it? You certainly haven't refuted my post with your response. Yes, they are showing people claiming to have witnessed a plane. No they aren't showing anybody else. Just because there is no vision of people witnessing a missile or different plane doesn't mean they don't exist right. Very strange logic you will call that, just look up to the last quote.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/41485 Have a listen to this audio of a lady 35-40 feet from the impact and her version of what she saw, what she didn't say, and what she wasn't prepared to lie about when directed to do so. Strangely enough, she wasn't interviewed. Hmmm Keep your eyewitnesses, people doing their job as directed does not mean they witnessed anything.
-------
And also, please stop with your big quote posts unless you actually plan on saying something in them. As of yet, you have said very little, yet take up pages on the thread.
this is your opinion and you have no evidence to back it up.I will keep refuting you and other CT's point by point, thank you very much.
---
But you are saying the same thing over and over. Why not just quote a whole post and post the one reply rather than wasting all your time quoting every point and using your single reply.
Cristo
Still not answered my question.
Is this your only occupation?
Still not answered my question.
Is this your only occupation?
easter wrote Momm speaks much sense.
haha
Sunset does have a habit of ruining any decent debate with his awful c+p'ing. Even though I'm on his side of this argument, I find myself wanting to believe the Truthers!
you are being rediculous, if you don't like me c+p'ing then block me.You are a troll and have added nothing to this debate,you haven't even got involved, just slagged me off.welcome to my blocked list,I've got better things to do than read your crap.I won't throw you in the briar patch though,as you is local.
The only way you'll ever stop him (and it's a longshot given his mental state) is to totally ignore everything he posts and not get involved in replying to him.
You're wrong here tho Momm - just ask for evidence of one of the miracles of Jesus Christ, our Lord. He reckons he's posted it loads of times but I always miss it. Probably because it's in one of his interminable c+p's!
no I have never said this,you are making things up.i have posted evidence of God's existance though.
haha
Sunset does have a habit of ruining any decent debate with his awful c+p'ing. Even though I'm on his side of this argument, I find myself wanting to believe the Truthers!
you are being rediculous, if you don't like me c+p'ing then block me.You are a troll and have added nothing to this debate,you haven't even got involved, just slagged me off.welcome to my blocked list,I've got better things to do than read your crap.I won't throw you in the briar patch though,as you is local.
The only way you'll ever stop him (and it's a longshot given his mental state) is to totally ignore everything he posts and not get involved in replying to him.
You're wrong here tho Momm - just ask for evidence of one of the miracles of Jesus Christ, our Lord. He reckons he's posted it loads of times but I always miss it. Probably because it's in one of his interminable c+p's!
no I have never said this,you are making things up.i have posted evidence of God's existance though.
gene wrote It's interesting how SC and Pandorica continually call anyone who doesn't believe the official version liars.
Never do any of the ct'ers on here call them liars.
of course you have by the very definition,me and pandy believe a plane hit the Pentagon.that by definition means we are lyers according to you.
I'm sure that one of you amateur psychologists on here can make something out of that.
Never do any of the ct'ers on here call them liars.
of course you have by the very definition,me and pandy believe a plane hit the Pentagon.that by definition means we are lyers according to you.
I'm sure that one of you amateur psychologists on here can make something out of that.
ag wrote Cristo
Again. Is this your only occupation?.
what are you tripping on?
You can not be doing this for your own benefit
I am interested in 9/11 and I get a kick out of proving CT's wrong ,it's not hard.
Again. Is this your only occupation?.
what are you tripping on?
You can not be doing this for your own benefit
I am interested in 9/11 and I get a kick out of proving CT's wrong ,it's not hard.
slarty wrote James Corbett summing up the case against the official narrative in less than five minutes:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=player_embedded
you have put this up 3 times now, is it supposed to be a joke?
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=player_embedded
you have put this up 3 times now, is it supposed to be a joke?
Ag wrote How did the wings of the planes slice through the steel beams and floors. What are the wings made from
so you think there is too much damage at the TT,but not enough damage at the Pentagon,hmmm.
so you think there is too much damage at the TT,but not enough damage at the Pentagon,hmmm.
epic ,I think you will find the CT's rarely answer questions, they like to ask questions, they have no answers.
AG wrote Epicurean you seem slightly unbalanced..
I merely asked a question. Asking a question does not mean that i am mental. Can you answer the question?
I have been asking you questions AG since last year, so this is a bit rich coming from you
I merely asked a question. Asking a question does not mean that i am mental. Can you answer the question?
I have been asking you questions AG since last year, so this is a bit rich coming from you
alpha wrote Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993,Israel had to agree to release so-called 'political prisoners.'
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center . This was reported
by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
this is an urban legend.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blatta.htm
However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,'insisted' that all prisoners be released.
Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked us by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center . This was reported
by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified.
It was censored in the US from all later reports.
this is an urban legend.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blatta.htm
gene wrote Epic
I think your remark of "simpletons" is a bit of a cheek tbh.
Your fellow travellers,as you put it,are the religious nut,Sunset Cristo and the malevolent super-ego Pandorica.
more abuse, yet more evidence that you have lost the argument again.
You are clearly a bit dim and naive,so,as I say,you have a bit of a cheek
yet more evidence you have lost the argument,why can't you just deal with the evidence that I and others have raised and stop ignoring the evidence.you really are being dishonest.
I think your remark of "simpletons" is a bit of a cheek tbh.
Your fellow travellers,as you put it,are the religious nut,Sunset Cristo and the malevolent super-ego Pandorica.
more abuse, yet more evidence that you have lost the argument again.
You are clearly a bit dim and naive,so,as I say,you have a bit of a cheek
yet more evidence you have lost the argument,why can't you just deal with the evidence that I and others have raised and stop ignoring the evidence.you really are being dishonest.
slarty wrote epicurean, do you have any response, rational or otherwise, to the video? Ad hominem attacks are so unconvincing
perhaps you could tell that to your fellow CT's and MOMM+Easter as well.time to leave the play ground mentality behind and deal with the evidence.A lot people on this thread need to grow up.
perhaps you could tell that to your fellow CT's and MOMM+Easter as well.time to leave the play ground mentality behind and deal with the evidence.A lot people on this thread need to grow up.
gene wrote Of course,the Greatest Ever Irony,here on chit-chat,is the fact that Sunset is The Chit-Chatter Who Has Posted The Most Ever Replies Asking For Evidence,while believing in God
this is irrelevant gene, another of your Diversionary tactics.I have posted evidence for God many times,perhaps you should get invovled in one of the God debates some time and I will crush your "arguments" like I have in this thread.I say arguments ,of course they are not arguments ,just assertions.
this is irrelevant gene, another of your Diversionary tactics.I have posted evidence for God many times,perhaps you should get invovled in one of the God debates some time and I will crush your "arguments" like I have in this thread.I say arguments ,of course they are not arguments ,just assertions.
BJT,you really should enbolden or use italics if you are going to C+p like that,unless you just want to cause confusion and stop me replying,is that your agenda?
AG wrote Cristo
Still not answered my question.
Is this your only occupation
it's a silly question and I will start answering your questions when you start answering mine,know what I mean?
Still not answered my question.
Is this your only occupation
it's a silly question and I will start answering your questions when you start answering mine,know what I mean?
gene wrote It's interesting how SC and Pandorica continually call anyone who doesn't believe the official version liars.
Never do any of the ct'ers on here call them liars.
of course you have by the very definition,me and pandy believe a plane hit the Pentagon.that by definition means we are lyers according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't mean that at all.I genuinely don't think you and Pandy are liars.I've never called either of you liars.
I do think you're very wrong in believing the official version though,but liars?.....no.
Never do any of the ct'ers on here call them liars.
of course you have by the very definition,me and pandy believe a plane hit the Pentagon.that by definition means we are lyers according to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't mean that at all.I genuinely don't think you and Pandy are liars.I've never called either of you liars.
I do think you're very wrong in believing the official version though,but liars?.....no.
Sunset Cristo 14 Sep 11 17:39
slarty wrote James Corbett summing up the case against the official narrative in less than five minutes:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=player_embedded
you have put this up 3 times now, is it supposed to be a joke?
Ermmm. No. As stated, it's just a quick summary of the case against the official narrative. Do you have any comment on its content or are you just going to make fatuous comments?
slarty wrote James Corbett summing up the case against the official narrative in less than five minutes:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=player_embedded
you have put this up 3 times now, is it supposed to be a joke?
Ermmm. No. As stated, it's just a quick summary of the case against the official narrative. Do you have any comment on its content or are you just going to make fatuous comments?
Sunset Cristo
14 Sep 11 17:59
slarty wrote epicurean, do you have any response, rational or otherwise, to the video? Ad hominem attacks are so unconvincing
perhaps you could tell that to your fellow CT's and MOMM+Easter as well.time to leave the play ground mentality behind and deal with the evidence.A lot people on this thread need to grow up.
I'm not responsible for what other people do.
I've never been interested in personal attacks, mockery, mudslinging, etc, though I have sometimes been the subject of these. A point of debate should stand or fall on its own merits. Not because of the cleverness of someone's insults, or similar. I'm interested in debating ideas using reason, logic and evidence. Personal attacks always detract from the search for truth. (Cue the oh-so witty and useful mockery)
14 Sep 11 17:59
slarty wrote epicurean, do you have any response, rational or otherwise, to the video? Ad hominem attacks are so unconvincing
perhaps you could tell that to your fellow CT's and MOMM+Easter as well.time to leave the play ground mentality behind and deal with the evidence.A lot people on this thread need to grow up.
I'm not responsible for what other people do.
I've never been interested in personal attacks, mockery, mudslinging, etc, though I have sometimes been the subject of these. A point of debate should stand or fall on its own merits. Not because of the cleverness of someone's insults, or similar. I'm interested in debating ideas using reason, logic and evidence. Personal attacks always detract from the search for truth. (Cue the oh-so witty and useful mockery)
Where is this "evidence" of gods existed posted? In which thread, I couldn't find anything.
Should be comedy gold no doubt. :)
Should be comedy gold no doubt. :)
gene wrote It doesn't mean that at all.I genuinely don't think you and Pandy are liars.I've never called either of you liars.
I do think you're very wrong in believing the official version though,but liars?.....no
me and pandy are saying a plane crashed into the Pentagon, if that didn't happen then we are liars.
I do think you're very wrong in believing the official version though,but liars?.....no
me and pandy are saying a plane crashed into the Pentagon, if that didn't happen then we are liars.
slarty wrote Ermmm. No. As stated, it's just a quick summary of the case against the official narrative. Do you have any comment on its content or are you just going to make fatuous comments
you have posted it on 3 different threads, one on the politics forum.As for the video, some of it is true and some isn't.
you have posted it on 3 different threads, one on the politics forum.As for the video, some of it is true and some isn't.
Sunsets evidence of the existence of God was posted, but you need faith.
i'm sorry i can't be bothered to read this entire fred, but am curious what the prog had to say about the way id from the pilots seemed to miraculously survive the crash and destruction, to be conveniently found very soon afterwards.
slarty wrote Sunset Cristo
14 Sep 11 17:59
slarty wrote epicurean, do you have any response, rational or otherwise, to the video? Ad hominem attacks are so unconvincing
perhaps you could tell that to your fellow CT's and MOMM+Easter as well.time to leave the play ground mentality behind and deal with the evidence.A lot people on this thread need to grow up.
I'm not responsible for what other people do.
I never said you was,but if you are going to pull some one up for making personal attacks on you,why not say something when the CT's do it?
I've never been interested in personal attacks, mockery, mudslinging, etc,
neither I am, this is one thing we are agreed on,I have always found you one of the more sensible grown up posters on these threads.
though I have sometimes been the subject of these.
I have many times,there are a lot of trolls on the tinternet,they are best ignored.
A point of debate should stand or fall on its own merits.
Agreed.
Not because of the cleverness of someone's insults, or similar. I'm interested in debating ideas using reason, logic and evidence. Personal attacks always detract from the search for truth. (Cue the oh-so witty and useful mockery)
at last we are singing from the same hymn sheet.while we are talking about evidence, what do you think went into the Pentagon?
14 Sep 11 17:59
slarty wrote epicurean, do you have any response, rational or otherwise, to the video? Ad hominem attacks are so unconvincing
perhaps you could tell that to your fellow CT's and MOMM+Easter as well.time to leave the play ground mentality behind and deal with the evidence.A lot people on this thread need to grow up.
I'm not responsible for what other people do.
I never said you was,but if you are going to pull some one up for making personal attacks on you,why not say something when the CT's do it?
I've never been interested in personal attacks, mockery, mudslinging, etc,
neither I am, this is one thing we are agreed on,I have always found you one of the more sensible grown up posters on these threads.
though I have sometimes been the subject of these.
I have many times,there are a lot of trolls on the tinternet,they are best ignored.
A point of debate should stand or fall on its own merits.
Agreed.
Not because of the cleverness of someone's insults, or similar. I'm interested in debating ideas using reason, logic and evidence. Personal attacks always detract from the search for truth. (Cue the oh-so witty and useful mockery)
at last we are singing from the same hymn sheet.while we are talking about evidence, what do you think went into the Pentagon?
The passport bounced off the black box recorder just before it was vapourised, and fluttered to the ground intact. It was quite lucky really.
p+e wrote Sunsets evidence of the existence of God was posted, but you need faith
pardon?
pardon?
losers wrote i'm sorry i can't be bothered to read this entire fred, but am curious what the prog had to say about the way id from the pilots seemed to miraculously survive the crash and destruction, to be conveniently found very soon afterwards.
this was not covered.it can be seen though from the videos that many objects wents straight through the buildings.
this was not covered.it can be seen though from the videos that many objects wents straight through the buildings.
I.e it's not anywhere you can see it, but you should never doubt it's there.
HTH you mug.
HTH you mug.
P+E you are changing the subject again,a typical troll tactic.I suggest you take a look at one of the God threads,plenty of evidence there.thats very convincing P+E ,insulting me.
Sunset wrote. "Forgive them father, they know not what my mummy told me".
As i said before P+E I was not brought up in a Christain home, sorry if this shatters your silly delusions.
Posters try to be civil with Christo but he/she just reverts to type. A loudmouth and a bully. There is no place for his/her like on this forum. You are destroying every thread you go onto reducing it to him/her and only him/her. It is a pity because some of the discussions are enjoyable and allow other forum members to offer personal views on a whole range of subjects.
If he/she continues to disabuse everyone around you then he/she will find himself/hrself isolated and alone. Every thread he/she goes onto disintergrates into a list of accusations by him/her on other posters.
If he/she continues to disabuse everyone around you then he/she will find himself/hrself isolated and alone. Every thread he/she goes onto disintergrates into a list of accusations by him/her on other posters.
You are the one who is making false accusations against me.
SC said.....me and pandy are saying a plane crashed into the Pentagon, if that didn't happen then we are liars.
That's your problem isn't it SC.It's completely black or white with you all the time,which would go some way,to me at least,to explaining your religious beliefs too.You don't even recognise that having an opinion on something and being proved incorrect later on doesn't make you a liar.
That's your problem isn't it SC.It's completely black or white with you all the time,which would go some way,to me at least,to explaining your religious beliefs too.You don't even recognise that having an opinion on something and being proved incorrect later on doesn't make you a liar.
Cristo
The wings of the planes which apparently smashed into the twin towers were made from aluminium. Can you explain how they sliced through steel H & C beams.
I have never mentioned the Pentagon, so quit with the lies.
The wings of the planes which apparently smashed into the twin towers were made from aluminium. Can you explain how they sliced through steel H & C beams.
I have never mentioned the Pentagon, so quit with the lies.
Oh dear Sunset, that really does make you inexcusably gullible and backward. You had no religeous influence as a child, but in adult life decided the "evidence" for God was overwhelming. Please, share with the forum this evidence, since evidence is so precious to you. And don't refer to othet threads. Repeat it here for us now please.
Or alternatively, just **** off you nozzle.
Or alternatively, just **** off you nozzle.
A quiet day today on this thread, most of the posts just consisting of trading juvenile insults.
Maybe it`s time to call it a draw?
Maybe it`s time to call it a draw?
gene wrote SC said.....me and pandy are saying a plane crashed into the Pentagon, if that didn't happen then we are liars.
That's your problem isn't it SC.It's completely black or white with you all the time
well a plane either did or didn't hit the Pentagon, so yes that is black and white,but I have never said that I agree 100% with the official version ,so in that sense not everything is black and white there are always unanswered questions with events like this.
,which would go some way,to me at least,to explaining your religious beliefs too.
wrong again,many things in life are grey areas.You are making assumptions about me.There are many subjects that I have not made my mind up about because the evidence is not clear imvho.MMGW for example.certain things are clear though if you look at the evidence,what happened in 9/11 for example.a plane crashed into the Pentagon gene, stop ignoring the evidence.
You don't even recognise that having an opinion on something and being proved incorrect later on doesn't make you a liar
A liar is some one that isn't telling the truth ,it doesn't matter if they are sincere of don't know they are lying ,they are still lying.hth
That's your problem isn't it SC.It's completely black or white with you all the time
well a plane either did or didn't hit the Pentagon, so yes that is black and white,but I have never said that I agree 100% with the official version ,so in that sense not everything is black and white there are always unanswered questions with events like this.
,which would go some way,to me at least,to explaining your religious beliefs too.
wrong again,many things in life are grey areas.You are making assumptions about me.There are many subjects that I have not made my mind up about because the evidence is not clear imvho.MMGW for example.certain things are clear though if you look at the evidence,what happened in 9/11 for example.a plane crashed into the Pentagon gene, stop ignoring the evidence.
You don't even recognise that having an opinion on something and being proved incorrect later on doesn't make you a liar
A liar is some one that isn't telling the truth ,it doesn't matter if they are sincere of don't know they are lying ,they are still lying.hth
AG wrote Cristo
The wings of the planes which apparently smashed into the twin towers were made from aluminium. Can you explain how they sliced through steel H & C beams.
can you read, I said I will answer your questions when you start answering mine.you are a hypocrite.
I have never mentioned the Pentagon, so quit with the lies.
The wings of the planes which apparently smashed into the twin towers were made from aluminium. Can you explain how they sliced through steel H & C beams.
can you read, I said I will answer your questions when you start answering mine.you are a hypocrite.
I have never mentioned the Pentagon, so quit with the lies.
p+e wrote Oh dear Sunset, that really does make you inexcusably gullible and backward. You had no religeous influence as a child, but in adult life decided the "evidence" for God was overwhelming. Please, share with the forum this evidence,
already done many times,please get involved in the next God thread if you really want to know, but I think you are being disingenuous and just want to change the subject because your silly arguments have been crushed on this thread, quit acting like a troll and stay on topic.
since evidence is so precious to you. And don't refer to othet threads. Repeat it here for us now please.
this is a thread about 9/11,not evidence for God.not doubt the troll MOMM will acuse me of changing the subject if i respond,of course he won't say anything to you because he has issues with me, he suffers with Christianophobia
Or alternatively, just **** off you nozzle
alternatively you could stop acting like a troll and get invovled in the deabate at least gene+slarty try.
already done many times,please get involved in the next God thread if you really want to know, but I think you are being disingenuous and just want to change the subject because your silly arguments have been crushed on this thread, quit acting like a troll and stay on topic.
since evidence is so precious to you. And don't refer to othet threads. Repeat it here for us now please.
this is a thread about 9/11,not evidence for God.not doubt the troll MOMM will acuse me of changing the subject if i respond,of course he won't say anything to you because he has issues with me, he suffers with Christianophobia
Or alternatively, just **** off you nozzle
alternatively you could stop acting like a troll and get invovled in the deabate at least gene+slarty try.
A liar is some one that isn't telling the truth ,it doesn't matter if they are sincere of don't know they are lying ,they are still lying.hth
Wrong. Very wrong. But not totally unexpected.
In order for it to be classed as a lie, it must be deliberate. By definition there must be an intention to deceive.
As long as you believe an aeroplane crashed into the Pentagon, then expressing that as an opinion or even as an assertion is not a lie, regardless of whether it turns out to be true or false.
Wrong. Very wrong. But not totally unexpected.
In order for it to be classed as a lie, it must be deliberate. By definition there must be an intention to deceive.
As long as you believe an aeroplane crashed into the Pentagon, then expressing that as an opinion or even as an assertion is not a lie, regardless of whether it turns out to be true or false.
He's at it again.
I'll repeat what I posted on another thread:
>A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.<
And that's what Cristo does. Constantly. It's his entire MO. It's how he gets his kicks. Not only is civilised, rational debate beyond him, but he has no interest in it. His sole purpose in life is to try and wind up as many people as possible with his arrogance and his attempts to belittle other posters. And part of his attempts to get a reaction is to accuse other people of being trolls when, as you can clearly see, he's one of the biggest trolls on here.
I gave up with him a long time ago. I've shot him down in flames so many times in the past, but he just leads you round in circles and refuses to accept blindingly obvious points raised by so many people, repeating the same nonsense time and time again. He still keeps trying to goad me but I won't have anything to do with him now. All I do now is make the occasional post like this one to warn others about him.
It's such a shame for the forum because as you rightly say, some of the threads which he hijacks have a lot of potential for enjoyable and interesting discussion, but he destroys every one of them.
It would be interesting to see a psychiatric report on him. To quote from Fawlty Towers, "There's enough material there for an entire conference!"
I'll repeat what I posted on another thread:
>A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.<
And that's what Cristo does. Constantly. It's his entire MO. It's how he gets his kicks. Not only is civilised, rational debate beyond him, but he has no interest in it. His sole purpose in life is to try and wind up as many people as possible with his arrogance and his attempts to belittle other posters. And part of his attempts to get a reaction is to accuse other people of being trolls when, as you can clearly see, he's one of the biggest trolls on here.
I gave up with him a long time ago. I've shot him down in flames so many times in the past, but he just leads you round in circles and refuses to accept blindingly obvious points raised by so many people, repeating the same nonsense time and time again. He still keeps trying to goad me but I won't have anything to do with him now. All I do now is make the occasional post like this one to warn others about him.
It's such a shame for the forum because as you rightly say, some of the threads which he hijacks have a lot of potential for enjoyable and interesting discussion, but he destroys every one of them.
It would be interesting to see a psychiatric report on him. To quote from Fawlty Towers, "There's enough material there for an entire conference!"
As you can see, there is a perfect example of it:
no doubt the troll MOMM . . .
no doubt the troll MOMM . . .
he has issues with me, he suffers with Christianophobia
Wrong again Cristo. Very wrong.
I have no objection whatsoever to people who wish to believe in a god if it gives them some sort of comfort. But it relies on blind faith.
What I object to is arrogant people like you constantly saying that you have evidence for the existence of a god when quite clearly there isn't any. That's why it's a called a Faith. You insult everyone's intelligence by constantly asserting that you evidence for the existence of a god when none exists. If it did, we'd all have no cause to question it would we? It's a simple point but one you either fail to comprehend, or refuse to acknowledge because it would spoil your trolling fun. I suspect the latter.
Wrong again Cristo. Very wrong.
I have no objection whatsoever to people who wish to believe in a god if it gives them some sort of comfort. But it relies on blind faith.
What I object to is arrogant people like you constantly saying that you have evidence for the existence of a god when quite clearly there isn't any. That's why it's a called a Faith. You insult everyone's intelligence by constantly asserting that you evidence for the existence of a god when none exists. If it did, we'd all have no cause to question it would we? It's a simple point but one you either fail to comprehend, or refuse to acknowledge because it would spoil your trolling fun. I suspect the latter.
brigust wrote Oh look. The forum tw a t Sunset Christo is here as well. Another thread bites the dust
it's funny you accuse me of being a bully and you say you hate bullies, but you're the one who is calling me names.I rest my case.
it's funny you accuse me of being a bully and you say you hate bullies, but you're the one who is calling me names.I rest my case.
Just exposing you for what you are SC. Change your ways. You must be more intelligent and comminacative than you are. You just ruin thread after thread with your ridiculous attitude.
Sunset Cristo
14 Sep 11 17:59
slarty wrote epicurean, do you have any response, rational or otherwise, to the video? Ad hominem attacks are so unconvincing
perhaps you could tell that to your fellow CT's and MOMM+Easter as well.time to leave the play ground mentality behind and deal with the evidence.A lot people on this thread need to grow up.
As with irrationality, there is much juvenile behaviour on both sides(ie those who believe the official narrative and those who are sceptical of it).
I seem to be unusual on here in that I willingly acknowledge that I don't know what happened on 911. Most people seem to believe the official narrative or some alternative. To paraphrase Einstein, belief is the enemy of truth imo.
14 Sep 11 17:59
slarty wrote epicurean, do you have any response, rational or otherwise, to the video? Ad hominem attacks are so unconvincing
perhaps you could tell that to your fellow CT's and MOMM+Easter as well.time to leave the play ground mentality behind and deal with the evidence.A lot people on this thread need to grow up.
As with irrationality, there is much juvenile behaviour on both sides(ie those who believe the official narrative and those who are sceptical of it).
I seem to be unusual on here in that I willingly acknowledge that I don't know what happened on 911. Most people seem to believe the official narrative or some alternative. To paraphrase Einstein, belief is the enemy of truth imo.
brigust wrote Just exposing you for what you are SC.
You have exposed nothing ,you just continue to make personal attacks on me and refuse to debate the evidence, shame on you.
Change your ways.
Pot calling kettle.
You must be more intelligent and comminacative than you are. You just ruin thread after thread with your ridiculous attitude
I have done no such thing.you are making things up.
You have exposed nothing ,you just continue to make personal attacks on me and refuse to debate the evidence, shame on you.
Change your ways.
Pot calling kettle.
You must be more intelligent and comminacative than you are. You just ruin thread after thread with your ridiculous attitude
I have done no such thing.you are making things up.
slarty wrote As with irrationality, there is much juvenile behaviour on both sides(ie those who believe the official narrative and those who are sceptical of it).
Agreed.
I seem to be unusual on here in that I willingly acknowledge that I don't know what happened on 911. Most people seem to believe the official narrative or some alternative. To paraphrase Einstein, belief is the enemy of truth imo
So you think some evidence points to conspiracy and some points to the official version?
Agreed.
I seem to be unusual on here in that I willingly acknowledge that I don't know what happened on 911. Most people seem to believe the official narrative or some alternative. To paraphrase Einstein, belief is the enemy of truth imo
So you think some evidence points to conspiracy and some points to the official version?
I seem to be unusual on here in that I willingly acknowledge that I don't know what happened on 911. Most people seem to believe the official narrative or some alternative. To paraphrase Einstein, belief is the enemy of truth imo.
In my opinion it has a lot to do with a sense of values. It occurs to me (a believer in the basic official version) that arguments do not rest on the technical aspects of 911, most of which seem to be debatable, but on the sense of values of the individual themselves. I’m inclined to believe that politicians, military personnel, security personnel and scientific experts share many of the values that I do. Therefore, I cannot conceive of a Western politician waking up one morning and deciding it would be a good idea to murder thousands of his own people. Nor can I find it easy to believe that those others mentioned would collude willingly before and after the fact.
Cters seem to believe the values that most of us cherish are absent from those involved in the official version. The experts are liars, or they are payed or plain wrong. Clearly we'd be offended in the same position if someone doubted our abilities or willingness to tell the truth or do the right thing. It seems to me there's an insanity about them believing it was a conspiracy. It has to be like that, because to believe otherwise is too horrific to contemplate being true.
In my opinion it has a lot to do with a sense of values. It occurs to me (a believer in the basic official version) that arguments do not rest on the technical aspects of 911, most of which seem to be debatable, but on the sense of values of the individual themselves. I’m inclined to believe that politicians, military personnel, security personnel and scientific experts share many of the values that I do. Therefore, I cannot conceive of a Western politician waking up one morning and deciding it would be a good idea to murder thousands of his own people. Nor can I find it easy to believe that those others mentioned would collude willingly before and after the fact.
Cters seem to believe the values that most of us cherish are absent from those involved in the official version. The experts are liars, or they are payed or plain wrong. Clearly we'd be offended in the same position if someone doubted our abilities or willingness to tell the truth or do the right thing. It seems to me there's an insanity about them believing it was a conspiracy. It has to be like that, because to believe otherwise is too horrific to contemplate being true.
(Sigh)Cristo
You are about as popular as a wasp at a BBQ.
Aluminium vs Steel?.....which one mangles the other?
You are about as popular as a wasp at a BBQ.
Aluminium vs Steel?.....which one mangles the other?
Boggle who are the experts that you refer to?
We have scholars, architects, engineers and scientists on both sides of the argument.
Or should we just lean with the ones who are supported by the media and politicians?
We have scholars, architects, engineers and scientists on both sides of the argument.
Or should we just lean with the ones who are supported by the media and politicians?
Those involved in the official investigation - NIST would be an example.
Boggle , many on this thread do not share your view they have a pathological hatred of America or a warped view of the world .
The truth they say they seek is in reality the truth they want to believe that fits their agenda or dogma.
The CT professionals are clever. They recognized that these type of people offer a good source of income to be exploited with the advent of the WWW.
What happens is these people form a kind of CT cult .For instance AG says one member of a group called the "truthers" was threatened with death for changing his mind .
That type of mind set is what we have seen in the past from various cults .
The truth they say they seek is in reality the truth they want to believe that fits their agenda or dogma.
The CT professionals are clever. They recognized that these type of people offer a good source of income to be exploited with the advent of the WWW.
What happens is these people form a kind of CT cult .For instance AG says one member of a group called the "truthers" was threatened with death for changing his mind .
That type of mind set is what we have seen in the past from various cults .
I was going to leave this thread well alone - read it, but post no more.
However, lest it be thought that those believing the Commmission report do so based on "a sense of values" (Boggle), I would just like to point out my belief is not based on that at all, (unless you count commonsense, science, mathematics and a respect of eyewitness, video and forensic evidence as being areas dependent upon "a sense of values").
However, lest it be thought that those believing the Commmission report do so based on "a sense of values" (Boggle), I would just like to point out my belief is not based on that at all, (unless you count commonsense, science, mathematics and a respect of eyewitness, video and forensic evidence as being areas dependent upon "a sense of values").
Well CTers come to exactly the opposite conclusion using the same reasoning, many of them highly-educated, so wherein lies the difference? And why do you have a respect for eye witnesses if not from a sense of shared values? Presumably because if it was you, you'd say what you saw, no more no less. The CTers don't believe them, why? Because they don't believe the conspirators have the same values as the rest of us.
And clearly there's a difference between the nebulous 'a sense of' (my words) and the concrete 'dependant upon' (yours).
And clearly there's a difference between the nebulous 'a sense of' (my words) and the concrete 'dependant upon' (yours).
boggle
I've no doubt that many people in Germany in the 1930's thought that their values were shared by the new party that had recently taken over.I've no doubt that many people in Great Britain and the United States also shared those perceived values.
I've no doubt that many people in Germany in the 1930's thought that their values were shared by the new party that had recently taken over.I've no doubt that many people in Great Britain and the United States also shared those perceived values.
The difference?
Well that's obvious:
The Peloponnesian War
The Vendee
UK Government (in)action during the Irish potato famine
Pol Pot
Hitler and The Holocaust
Stalin's Purges
to name but a few.
You could scarcely believe any of that could happen but it did.
In the case of the FLs you're right to a certain extent. In the same way people have "faith" without the need for evidence, so they have their belief structure despite, not because, of physical evidence eminating from 9-11.
Evidence leads me to believe the 9-11 Commission is overwhelmingly accurate; commonsense does the same; conditional probability does it too.
While I think it's unlikely in the extreme that a Western politician/establishment figure would/could plan the whole 9-11 shebang, that's not the fundamental reason for believing the Commission report. It's inaccurate to suggest FLs and non-FLs are on the same page even there.
Well that's obvious:
The Peloponnesian War
The Vendee
UK Government (in)action during the Irish potato famine
Pol Pot
Hitler and The Holocaust
Stalin's Purges
to name but a few.
You could scarcely believe any of that could happen but it did.
In the case of the FLs you're right to a certain extent. In the same way people have "faith" without the need for evidence, so they have their belief structure despite, not because, of physical evidence eminating from 9-11.
Evidence leads me to believe the 9-11 Commission is overwhelmingly accurate; commonsense does the same; conditional probability does it too.
While I think it's unlikely in the extreme that a Western politician/establishment figure would/could plan the whole 9-11 shebang, that's not the fundamental reason for believing the Commission report. It's inaccurate to suggest FLs and non-FLs are on the same page even there.
Loop de fruits.
I'm going to leave this thread alone again now.
:-)
I'm going to leave this thread alone again now.
:-)
AG wrote (Sigh)Cristo
You are about as popular as a wasp at a BBQ.
Oh this is a popularity contest is it, I'm more interested in the truth and evidence.I'm not a sheep,I don't care what ppl think of me.
Aluminium vs Steel?.....which one mangles the other
You are about as popular as a wasp at a BBQ.
Oh this is a popularity contest is it, I'm more interested in the truth and evidence.I'm not a sheep,I don't care what ppl think of me.
Aluminium vs Steel?.....which one mangles the other
'I'm not a sheep'
Oh the irony. Got back from church yet? How was the flock?
I think SC does it deliberately.
Oh the irony. Got back from church yet? How was the flock?
I think SC does it deliberately.
if your not a sheep ,then give a rational explanation for your beliefs?not on this thread though, this is about 9/11.
Actually I take that back. Namecalling is old hat. I'm always grouchy when I get up.
I like the new posting style SC. More reader-friendly.
I like the new posting style SC. More reader-friendly.
I could have sworn you said you wasn't going to be replying to me any more, you really need to get over your obsession with me and stop stalking me.you said you was going to block me the ther day as well.you would be doing me a favor, you obviously haven't got anything sensible to say ,only try and insult me,its like having wedged back he was another troll that preached nonsense.
you would be doing me a favor, you obviously haven't got anything sensible to say ,only try and insult me,its like having wedged back he was another troll that preached nonsense.
I only started chatting with you yesterday! I'd swallowed enough of your nonsense after reading it for a few weeks so thought I'd put you in your place.
I only had to make one point yesterday and keep pressing it home and it's obviously upset you.
Anyway, I said I'll stop chatting with you in the future. That could be anytime.
I only had to make one point yesterday and keep pressing it home and it's obviously upset you.
Anyway, I said I'll stop chatting with you in the future. That could be anytime.
cherry wrote I only started chatting with you yesterday!
this is blatant lie.
I'd swallowed enough of your nonsense after reading it for a few weeks so thought I'd put you in your place.
Must have missed this ,where can I find this post.
I only had to make one point yesterday and keep pressing it home and it's obviously upset you.
You never make a point,your a troll.
Anyway, I said I'll stop chatting with you in the future. That could be anytime
another blatant lie,you are a troll ,stop wasting my time, welcome to my blocked list.and I unlike you when I say some thing I stick to it.so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
this is blatant lie.
I'd swallowed enough of your nonsense after reading it for a few weeks so thought I'd put you in your place.
Must have missed this ,where can I find this post.
I only had to make one point yesterday and keep pressing it home and it's obviously upset you.
You never make a point,your a troll.
Anyway, I said I'll stop chatting with you in the future. That could be anytime
another blatant lie,you are a troll ,stop wasting my time, welcome to my blocked list.and I unlike you when I say some thing I stick to it.so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I asked for evidence of god. You can't provide ANY but thought that by saying rational argument was as good as evidence you went on your merry way spouting anything but evidence.
The thread was asking for evidence. It was in the title.
I'm sick and tired of people like you who go off on tangents.
You have posted plenty of guff about your faith so we didn't need anymore.
It's unsubstantiated nonsense. You repeat it ad nauseum.
Do us all a favour, delete your wiki bookmark and bore off.
The thread was asking for evidence. It was in the title.
I'm sick and tired of people like you who go off on tangents.
You have posted plenty of guff about your faith so we didn't need anymore.
It's unsubstantiated nonsense. You repeat it ad nauseum.
Do us all a favour, delete your wiki bookmark and bore off.
'When I say some thing I stick to it.so put that in your pipe and smoke it.'
That's your problem, inflexibility. And a low I.Q.
That's your problem, inflexibility. And a low I.Q.
I make no claims as to what happened on that day ,but I have a few observations :
The way that the twin towers fell down ,just round about an hour after the strikes, does not seem long enough for the fires to have weakened the steel.Much of the jet fuel was burnt up on impact, that seems obvious..
Remember, the towers fell at practically free-fall speed. Even were the fires to have weakened the steel, are we to imagine that the whole building failed globally, at the same time at every critical joist and join ?.. and collapsed like a house of cards ? Everything pulverised ..? Surely in any pulverising there would be slowing down of the fall, would there not (i.e not free-fall) ?
After all, if I cook my dinner in the oven, it does not all collapse from heat after an hour of roasting...and the towers had a 47 strong core let us not forget ; so even had the exterior been damaged ,which we can see it was, then the core was surely still structurally sound and should have remained even after the rest had lost its integrity and fell.
Another interesting thing that has come to my attention is the term 'ground zero'.
Before 9/11 that term was only used to describe the site of an atomic explosion. Since 9/11, dictionaries have been changed to widen its meaning.
On these threads, I do not recollect the nuclear angle having been discussed so I will put it out there along with the name Dimitri Khalezov for those who might like to see his work on this.
“ground zero” n. a point on the ground directly below the center of a nuclear explosion.
Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus, 21 Century Edition (second edition 2000, ISBN 0 00 472502-6).
“ground zero”. The place on the earth’s surface directly at, below, or above the explosion of a nuclear bomb.
The American Heritage Desk Dictionary (Edition 1981, ISBN 0-395-31256-6).
The WTC7 falling straight down at free-fall really takes the biscuit especially as the commission does not really mention it and NIST do not really know what happened here either.
So some fires and debris damage we can expect from the twin towers nearby...but to fall at free-fall like a house of cards and announced on the Bbc some 25 mins before it fell as actually having already fell already...it's hard to believe that fires and damage could do this.
The hijacked planes were in the air a long time and FAA and NORAD had procedure for these type of situations and fighter jets would routinely deal with this yearly many times each year, for example when a plane would stray from its course they would have jets up there and flanking in about 10 minutes.
Why could they not deal with it this time ? Could the drills & exercises that mirrored the real-time scenario (akin to 7/7, but that is another issue perhaps)have played a role ?
I will leave it there right now..
The way that the twin towers fell down ,just round about an hour after the strikes, does not seem long enough for the fires to have weakened the steel.Much of the jet fuel was burnt up on impact, that seems obvious..
Remember, the towers fell at practically free-fall speed. Even were the fires to have weakened the steel, are we to imagine that the whole building failed globally, at the same time at every critical joist and join ?.. and collapsed like a house of cards ? Everything pulverised ..? Surely in any pulverising there would be slowing down of the fall, would there not (i.e not free-fall) ?
After all, if I cook my dinner in the oven, it does not all collapse from heat after an hour of roasting...and the towers had a 47 strong core let us not forget ; so even had the exterior been damaged ,which we can see it was, then the core was surely still structurally sound and should have remained even after the rest had lost its integrity and fell.
Another interesting thing that has come to my attention is the term 'ground zero'.
Before 9/11 that term was only used to describe the site of an atomic explosion. Since 9/11, dictionaries have been changed to widen its meaning.
On these threads, I do not recollect the nuclear angle having been discussed so I will put it out there along with the name Dimitri Khalezov for those who might like to see his work on this.
“ground zero” n. a point on the ground directly below the center of a nuclear explosion.
Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus, 21 Century Edition (second edition 2000, ISBN 0 00 472502-6).
“ground zero”. The place on the earth’s surface directly at, below, or above the explosion of a nuclear bomb.
The American Heritage Desk Dictionary (Edition 1981, ISBN 0-395-31256-6).
The WTC7 falling straight down at free-fall really takes the biscuit especially as the commission does not really mention it and NIST do not really know what happened here either.
So some fires and debris damage we can expect from the twin towers nearby...but to fall at free-fall like a house of cards and announced on the Bbc some 25 mins before it fell as actually having already fell already...it's hard to believe that fires and damage could do this.
The hijacked planes were in the air a long time and FAA and NORAD had procedure for these type of situations and fighter jets would routinely deal with this yearly many times each year, for example when a plane would stray from its course they would have jets up there and flanking in about 10 minutes.
Why could they not deal with it this time ? Could the drills & exercises that mirrored the real-time scenario (akin to 7/7, but that is another issue perhaps)have played a role ?
I will leave it there right now..
kefir wrote
I make no claims as to what happened on that day ,but I have a few observations :
The way that the twin towers fell down ,just round about an hour after the strikes, does not seem long enough for the fires to have weakened the steel.
You are forgetting they also got hit by 2 jumbo jets.the Fire protection coating was not blown off.
Much of the jet fuel was burnt up on impact, that seems obvious..
correct, but you are forgetting the other combustibles in the Towers.
Remember, the towers fell at practically free-fall speed. Even were the fires to have weakened the steel, are we to imagine that the whole building failed globally, at the same time at every critical joist and join ?..
it's called the domino effect.or tipping point.
and collapsed like a house of cards ?
See above.
Everything pulverised ..? Surely in any pulverising there would be slowing down of the fall, would there not (i.e not free-fall) ?
why, there was a lot of weight and gravity did the rest.
After all, if I cook my dinner in the oven, it does not all collapse from heat after an hour of roasting
this is a silly comparison.
...and the towers had a 47 strong core let us not forget
let us not forget it was damaged by the 2 jumbo jets.
; so even had the exterior been damaged ,which we can see it was, then the core was surely still structurally sound and should have remained even after the rest had lost its integrity and fell.
the plane went right through the building,you can see that on the videos.
Another interesting thing that has come to my attention is the term 'ground zero'.
Before 9/11 that term was only used to describe the site of an atomic explosion. Since 9/11, dictionaries have been changed to widen its meaning.
not true.
The term ground zero (sometimes also known as surface zero[1] as distinguished from zero point[2]) describes the point on the Earth's surface closest to a detonation.[3] In the case of an explosion above the ground, ground zero refers to the point on the ground directly below the detonation (see hypocenter).
The term has often been associated with nuclear explosions and other large bombs, but is also used in relation to earthquakes, epidemics and other disasters to mark the point of the most severe damage or destruction. The term is often re-used for disasters that have a geographic or conceptual epicenter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_zero
On these threads, I do not recollect the nuclear angle having been discussed so I will put it out there along with the name Dimitri Khalezov for those who might like to see his work on this.
“ground zero” n. a point on the ground directly below the center of a nuclear explosion.
Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus, 21 Century Edition (second edition 2000, ISBN 0 00 472502-6).
it can also mean
also used in relation to earthquakes, epidemics and other disasters to mark the point of the most severe damage or destruction. The term is often re-used for disasters that have a geographic or conceptual epicenter
“ground zero”. The place on the earth’s surface directly at, below, or above the explosion of a nuclear bomb.
The American Heritage Desk Dictionary (Edition 1981, ISBN 0-395-31256-6).
The WTC7 falling straight down at free-fall really takes the biscuit especially as the commission does not really mention it and NIST do not really know what happened here either.
So some fires and debris damage we can expect from the twin towers nearby...but to fall at free-fall like a house of cards
like I say, its the domino effect, no mystery.
and announced on the Bbc some 25 mins before it fell as actually having already fell already...it's hard to believe that fires and damage could do this.
This is a non sequitur.There was a lot of confusion that day,media often get things wrong when events are unfolding fast ,they did it again when reporting the Libya conflict.
The hijacked planes were in the air a long time and FAA and NORAD had procedure for these type of situations and fighter jets would routinely deal with this yearly many times each year, for example when a plane would stray from its course they would have jets up there and flanking in about 10 minutes.
What is your source for this?Again there was alot of confusion that day, thousands of planes in the air,the USA had never faced a situation like this before,hindsight is a great thing.
Why could they not deal with it this time ? Could the drills & exercises that mirrored the real-time scenario (akin to 7/7, but that is another issue perhaps)have played a role ?
according to the military it was the opposite, the drills helped because they were already on a state of alert.
I will leave it there right now..
thank you for your contribution.
I make no claims as to what happened on that day ,but I have a few observations :
The way that the twin towers fell down ,just round about an hour after the strikes, does not seem long enough for the fires to have weakened the steel.
You are forgetting they also got hit by 2 jumbo jets.the Fire protection coating was not blown off.
Much of the jet fuel was burnt up on impact, that seems obvious..
correct, but you are forgetting the other combustibles in the Towers.
Remember, the towers fell at practically free-fall speed. Even were the fires to have weakened the steel, are we to imagine that the whole building failed globally, at the same time at every critical joist and join ?..
it's called the domino effect.or tipping point.
and collapsed like a house of cards ?
See above.
Everything pulverised ..? Surely in any pulverising there would be slowing down of the fall, would there not (i.e not free-fall) ?
why, there was a lot of weight and gravity did the rest.
After all, if I cook my dinner in the oven, it does not all collapse from heat after an hour of roasting
this is a silly comparison.
...and the towers had a 47 strong core let us not forget
let us not forget it was damaged by the 2 jumbo jets.
; so even had the exterior been damaged ,which we can see it was, then the core was surely still structurally sound and should have remained even after the rest had lost its integrity and fell.
the plane went right through the building,you can see that on the videos.
Another interesting thing that has come to my attention is the term 'ground zero'.
Before 9/11 that term was only used to describe the site of an atomic explosion. Since 9/11, dictionaries have been changed to widen its meaning.
not true.
The term ground zero (sometimes also known as surface zero[1] as distinguished from zero point[2]) describes the point on the Earth's surface closest to a detonation.[3] In the case of an explosion above the ground, ground zero refers to the point on the ground directly below the detonation (see hypocenter).
The term has often been associated with nuclear explosions and other large bombs, but is also used in relation to earthquakes, epidemics and other disasters to mark the point of the most severe damage or destruction. The term is often re-used for disasters that have a geographic or conceptual epicenter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_zero
On these threads, I do not recollect the nuclear angle having been discussed so I will put it out there along with the name Dimitri Khalezov for those who might like to see his work on this.
“ground zero” n. a point on the ground directly below the center of a nuclear explosion.
Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus, 21 Century Edition (second edition 2000, ISBN 0 00 472502-6).
it can also mean
also used in relation to earthquakes, epidemics and other disasters to mark the point of the most severe damage or destruction. The term is often re-used for disasters that have a geographic or conceptual epicenter
“ground zero”. The place on the earth’s surface directly at, below, or above the explosion of a nuclear bomb.
The American Heritage Desk Dictionary (Edition 1981, ISBN 0-395-31256-6).
The WTC7 falling straight down at free-fall really takes the biscuit especially as the commission does not really mention it and NIST do not really know what happened here either.
So some fires and debris damage we can expect from the twin towers nearby...but to fall at free-fall like a house of cards
like I say, its the domino effect, no mystery.
and announced on the Bbc some 25 mins before it fell as actually having already fell already...it's hard to believe that fires and damage could do this.
This is a non sequitur.There was a lot of confusion that day,media often get things wrong when events are unfolding fast ,they did it again when reporting the Libya conflict.
The hijacked planes were in the air a long time and FAA and NORAD had procedure for these type of situations and fighter jets would routinely deal with this yearly many times each year, for example when a plane would stray from its course they would have jets up there and flanking in about 10 minutes.
What is your source for this?Again there was alot of confusion that day, thousands of planes in the air,the USA had never faced a situation like this before,hindsight is a great thing.
Why could they not deal with it this time ? Could the drills & exercises that mirrored the real-time scenario (akin to 7/7, but that is another issue perhaps)have played a role ?
according to the military it was the opposite, the drills helped because they were already on a state of alert.
I will leave it there right now..
thank you for your contribution.
After all this, I am sad to say that all I have left for this goose SC, is you are a ****g goose. You provide nothing intelligible, it seems you just like to get the last word in no matter how infantile it is.
Well derailed. The whole thread has been turned into nothing more than a "wtf is that goose SC on".... So well done, goal achieved.
Well derailed. The whole thread has been turned into nothing more than a "wtf is that goose SC on".... So well done, goal achieved.
It's a shame decent posters get put off adding to threads.
It's all been said before about SC. Empty vessels and all that.
Block him, become part of a massive club, BJT
It's all been said before about SC. Empty vessels and all that.
Block him, become part of a massive club, BJT
Sunset Cristo 23 Sep 11 16:32
thank you for your contribution.
Brilliant!
Coming from anyone else you would probably think that was meant to be tongue in cheek, but as he doesn't have a sense of humour I think we can safely assume he seriously thinks this thread is here just for his benefit.
His arrogance never ceases to astound me.
thank you for your contribution.
Brilliant!Coming from anyone else you would probably think that was meant to be tongue in cheek, but as he doesn't have a sense of humour I think we can safely assume he seriously thinks this thread is here just for his benefit.
His arrogance never ceases to astound me.
bjt wrote After all this, I am sad to say that all I have left for this goose SC, is you are a ****g goose. You provide nothing intelligible,
more baseless assertions.
it seems you just like to get the last word in no matter how infantile it is.
No ,I'm just trying to have a civilized grown up discussion.
Well derailed. The whole thread has been turned into nothing more than a "wtf is that goose SC on".... So well done, goal achieved
You and the rest of the trolls have done this.I'm having a debate with kefir.
more baseless assertions.
it seems you just like to get the last word in no matter how infantile it is.
No ,I'm just trying to have a civilized grown up discussion.
Well derailed. The whole thread has been turned into nothing more than a "wtf is that goose SC on".... So well done, goal achieved
You and the rest of the trolls have done this.I'm having a debate with kefir.
This is something Pandy has touched on. Also high level levels of toxic chemicals reported prior to 9/11 but this is interesting..
An August 2003 report by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA claimed that the Bush administration pressured the EPA to remove cautionary information about the air quality at Ground Zero.
Numerous key differences between the draft versions and final versions of EPA statements were found. A recommendation that homes and businesses near ground zero be cleaned by professionals was replaced by a request that citizens follow orders from NYC officials. Another statement that showed concerns about "sensitive populations" was deleted altogether. Language used to describe excessive amounts of asbestos in the area was altered drastically to minimize the dangers it posed.[31]
Critics assert that government officials – notably Bush, Christine Todd Whitman (former head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency), and then-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani – downplayed the health risks of the area and rushed to reopen the area around Ground Zero, although this posed a grave and immediate health risk to first responders.[36] Many corporations were eager to hear the news of the New York Stock Exchange being reopened only a few days after the collapse.[37] On June 25, 2007, Whitman testified before a House of Representatives committee chaired by Jerrold Nadler. She said that a White House official informed her that President Bush expected that the Financial District would reopen within three days, that is, by September 14. She said that she replied that this would be cumbersome, since the EPA was still judging the health situation in the area.[37] Investigations after the attacks suggest that the Bush administration pressured Whitman and Giuliani to provide health reassurances in order to keep Wall Street operating.
An August 2003 report by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA claimed that the Bush administration pressured the EPA to remove cautionary information about the air quality at Ground Zero.
Numerous key differences between the draft versions and final versions of EPA statements were found. A recommendation that homes and businesses near ground zero be cleaned by professionals was replaced by a request that citizens follow orders from NYC officials. Another statement that showed concerns about "sensitive populations" was deleted altogether. Language used to describe excessive amounts of asbestos in the area was altered drastically to minimize the dangers it posed.[31]
Critics assert that government officials – notably Bush, Christine Todd Whitman (former head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency), and then-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani – downplayed the health risks of the area and rushed to reopen the area around Ground Zero, although this posed a grave and immediate health risk to first responders.[36] Many corporations were eager to hear the news of the New York Stock Exchange being reopened only a few days after the collapse.[37] On June 25, 2007, Whitman testified before a House of Representatives committee chaired by Jerrold Nadler. She said that a White House official informed her that President Bush expected that the Financial District would reopen within three days, that is, by September 14. She said that she replied that this would be cumbersome, since the EPA was still judging the health situation in the area.[37] Investigations after the attacks suggest that the Bush administration pressured Whitman and Giuliani to provide health reassurances in order to keep Wall Street operating.
To say that the American establishment hold a disregard for their own citizens ( even after the events of 9/11) is an understatement.
This the mentality of these people.
This the mentality of these people.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539