| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I see that Northern Soul submitted his first post at 1:01 pm today and 'clocked off' at 9:35 pm. He obviously got a bit over-involved....
.....I wonder if they'll pay him the half-hour overtime? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh Kbo I'm clearly not clever enough for you, you caught me, I'm a super secret NWO operative out to make everyone in this forum hate each other...
Why you ask?
Because we can!
Muhahahaha Muhahahaha
Anyone need any odd jobs doing, the New World Order super secret agent union is kind of garbage and we are all on minimum wage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can we lay off the shill accusations?
It's perfectly possible for someone to believe the official story without being an agent of some kind.
The human mind's a funny thing; if someone really doesn't want to believe something they'll accept all kinds of nonsense to keep their world view intact. I suspect this is the case with most (although probably not all) "critics"....
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: |
It's perfectly possible for someone to believe the official story without being an agent of some kind.
|
Stefan.
Anyone who has really looked at the evidence closely (as this individual claims to have done) cannot possibly be that stupid or confused.
What you said is only true for some people (most people, as it happens), i.e. those who have only seen the mainstream media programmes on 9/11 or others who have heard snatches of 9/11 'inside job' accusations but who haven't looked closely at the evidence themselves.......for whatever reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
... well, I suppose, for me the physics nails the issue 100%. When you put the material evidence together with all the other stuff I personally find it absolutely incomprehensible how anyone can have looked at the evidence and come down on the side of the official CT.
I suppose I have to admit it is possible but how such a thing is possible I just don't know.
I do know people who support the official story but I know these individuals have never studied the issue...it is just that they instinctively avoid exposing themselves to the possibility that their world-view will be shattered by the experience.
....and that really is quite a scary thought for anybody. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WyldeChylde
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthernSoul wrote: | I am aware of Sibel Edmonds, to my knowledge she was a translator for the FBI after 9/11 and has come forward with very little of anything. In my opinion at least
O'Neill is a story I am unfamiliar with however and will be sure to look up.
People will always profit from disaster. You have to put it in to context and consider who lost money as well, contrary to popular belief Larry Silverstein was far worse off after 9/11. As was the US government it self. Billions of dollars in vital infastructure had crumbled to the ground. |
Well to be fair to the lady, despite offering her story to anyone of the mainstream media who'll take it and putting her life on the line in the process, no-one will touch her with a 100ft barge pole.
With regards to the O'Neill case, there's a film on the home/front page on the left hand side called Who Killed John O'Neill (WKJO) - it's very interesting and clever, I highly suggest you give it a watch.
As for Mr. Silverstein, my understanding was he got the lease for $3.2 billion, despite not being the highest bidder. He then had the complex insured for $7 billion (as far as I understand he only parted ways with $124 million as a downpayment). After the attacks he filed two separate insurance claims for two separate attacks, and rewarded $4.6 billion. I know that part of the lease was that he had spend $120million a year in fees, and also has the responsibility of rebuilding, which is estimated to cost in the region of $9 billion. However, I find it still suspicious that he acquired the lease 2 months before the attacks, which was the first time the WTC has changed hands in its history, and that it was covered against terrorism. Coincidences maybe, but this is an area that deserves more thorough investigation before it can be settled without a doubt.
The Government was and still is enormous debt. I believe the US' national debt to be in the region of $9 trillion. Having watched numerous documentaries examining the influence of the wealthy banking families of Europe, I know that a country in debt is the most profitable asset. Wars force governments to borrow from privately owned central banks, requiring re-payments with interest included, thus lining the pockets of the ultra wealthy. A good documentary outlining these points is the Money Masters, it's a beast at 3 hours long but well worth it.
Besides, the WTC Towers were in a state - asbestos ridden and in desperate need of renovation - the cost to do so would be phenomenal, is it possible Controlled Demolition was cheaper and more effective, and could be used as part of a large-scale event to get them into a much-needed war with the East?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | contrary to popular belief Larry Silverstein was far worse off after 9/11. As was the US government it self |
It is precisely this kind of blatant lie posing as debate which makes people like Northern Soul unacceptable on this site. It is obvious s/he is here to shill. Please mods move this thread to Critic's Corner where the supporters of the mass murderers of 9/11 can hang out together.
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sherlock Holmes
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 205
Location: Sunny Southampton
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | contrary to popular belief Larry Silverstein was far worse off after 9/11. As was the US government it self |
It is precisely this kind of blatant lie posing as debate which makes people like Northern Soul unacceptable on this site. It is obvious s/he is here to shill. Please mods move this thread to Critic's Corner where the supporters of the mass murderers of 9/11 can hang out together. |
I agree with blackcat, Tony and others on this issue. This kind of blatant lying, distortion, deception, cynical inveiglement must be immediately recognised for what it is. Those engaged in this kind of behaviour should be banned forthwith in my opinion and told to post on the James Randi forum or such like.
Generally I am someone who avoids subscribing to the “MOSSAD/MI5/CIA bunker(s) filled with paid trolls and agent provocateur and disinformation” view. However my subscription to his view is quite regularly challenged, and the view is held more tenuously each passing day it seems.
The fact is most of here are exhausted after fighting the battle for 9/11 and 7/7 truth literally single headedly for years. The last thing we need is moronic posters who have seen screwloosechange or read popular mechanics to come on here and start arguing the toss with us. I find the behaviour to be demoralizing psychologically, and the people who are engaged in this behaviour, know this, so this must be one of the desired effects. Also the broader aim "to inveigle" is aimed at "lurkers", of which there are a substantial number.
After analysing the textual content of posts made by the people, there are common themes, phrases and even a narrow repertoire in terms of lexicon that is employed. So, I can only conclude that this is an organised behaviour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stop being so paranoid if the CIA really wanted to keep you quiet they'd have shut you up all ready. Do you honestly believe that the Zionists or MI or ISI or the NWO actaully have agents working on forums? A small forum which from the looks of it has declined hugely in activity since August 07? To be frank and despite what you believe you are not fighting for "Da Twoof" you are sitting at a computer screen spreading garbage.
If there is soooo much evidence for 9/11 truth why does 99.99% of the scientific community ignore you?
All of your evidence comes fomr DRG (A THEOLOGIAN), Richard Gage (Who designs one story gyms for schools and a like and has no experience with high rise buildings) Steven Jones (A man the scientific community have criticised since the 1980's) and Alex Jones (Whos only background is in spreading propeganda)
It is also worth metnioning that all of these people make a great deal of money out of telling you what you believe.
It is not a case of not wanting to believe in 9/11 Denial I simply find it impossible given how weak and easily debunked the evidence is.
And just a quick note to WyldeChylde, why do you find it strange that the WTC buildings were insured against terrorism, they had afterall been bombed by terrorists in 1993. Also to control demolition a building of either WTC's size would take months of planning (which must have started during the Clinton administration less that a year before) and how could you plant explosives in to such a huge building without anybody seeing you and without the demolition planners, of which there could probably be no less than 24 (conservatively) per building, spilling the beans when they'd realised what they had done? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have added a warning to this topic's title so that those so desperate to believe in this conspiracy that they are not willing to listen to simple reason, don't have to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WyldeChylde
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Quote: | | contrary to popular belief Larry Silverstein was far worse off after 9/11. As was the US government it self |
It is precisely this kind of blatant lie posing as debate which makes people like Northern Soul unacceptable on this site. It is obvious s/he is here to shill. Please mods move this thread to Critic's Corner where the supporters of the mass murderers of 9/11 can hang out together. |
With all due respect BlackCat, I've outlined I think to be the case re Mr. Silverstein and it doesn't look like he's made money off it...$124 million downpayment, insured for $7 billion, two months later they're destroyed, then eventually he receives $4.6 billion in insurance (which as far as I can is a profit), however in the passing years he's had to spend $120 million a year on the lease, and now has the responsibility of rebuilding which could cost him $9 billion - that's a loss right? Now please, don't pass me off as a 'shill' - 9/11 truth has consumed me for over a year. Which is precisely why I'm not going to trumpet an idea which isn't even true. So please, if you have any evidence he did profit from 9/11, I'd be v. grateful if you'd post it.
| Quote: | | And just a quick note to WyldeChylde, why do you find it strange that the WTC buildings were insured against terrorism, they had afterall been bombed by terrorists in 1993. Also to control demolition a building of either WTC's size would take months of planning (which must have started during the Clinton administration less that a year before) and how could you plant explosives in to such a huge building without anybody seeing you and without the demolition planners, of which there could probably be no less than 24 (conservatively) per building, spilling the beans when they'd realised what they had done? |
That's a fair point, however the FBI's involvement in the '93 bombings raises more questions as to who the actual culprits were. I am now demolition expert, I don't know where the explosives would have been, I don't know how it was done, I certainly don't know about it taking 48 different Demolitions contractors to pull it off (where did you get that figure from?). All I do know is it just makes no sense that two towers like that could collapse from being hit by planes, and then being the 'towering inferno' we're led to believe after such a short time. And then for WTC 7 to fall from the bottom up having been hit by debris in a certain area, falling the way it did...I just can't understand it.
| Quote: | | All of your evidence comes fomr DRG (A THEOLOGIAN), Richard Gage (Who designs one story gyms for schools and a like and has no experience with high rise buildings) Steven Jones (A man the scientific community have criticised since the 1980's) and Alex Jones (Whos only background is in spreading propeganda) |
Why is the fact DRG is a 'THEOLOGIAN' of any relevance? If anything it means in trained in the art of critical thinking - you don't need to be an architect, editor of Popular Mechanics, or a 'propagandist' to have questions about that day. His latest book 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking' is v.good book, I think you should give it a read.
I'veno comment on the other three as I haven't looked into their backgrounds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WyldeChylde,
It to me suggest he believes in things, and analyses things that, as an atheist, I do not consider to be based on evidence.
I still don't see why you would consider it strange that Silverstein took out insurance against Terrorism...maybe its just me but are you accusing him of being aware of both attacks? '01 and '93? Maybe it's just me but I'm just not
Also, I would be immensely interested in talking to you via email or PM on these topics if it pleases you, I will not lie my goal would be to make you see where I'm coming from and try to point out the falts in "9/11 Truths" arguments, and I'm sure you would attempt quite the opposite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WyldeChylde
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Location: Cardiff, Wales
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ok mate, I've added your msn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
