| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| quicknthedead wrote: |
Everyone, here is the first page of the file in question, the one he refers to by Won-Young Kim. It is actually named by Mr. Kim as "911Pentagon.pdf." I am quite familiar with it.
This first page is the summary of the report.
I encourage you to look at the entire document he bases his falsity on, here it is again (it is only 3 short pages):
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf
Please read it. It is short and then you’ll understand what a deceiver we are dealing with here. He won’t answer the question because he can't.
Sorry, Johnny Boy, I won’t respond to your nonsense anymore. I am working hard at exposing this coverup that people like you are attempting to continue. If someone else wants to deal with you and your ring-around-the-rosey tactics, that is their right. Personally, I am not going to waste any more precious time with you.
TO EVERYONE ELSE, PLEASE MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND; READ THE DOCUMENT HERE THAT I AUTHORED AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELF. IT IS SIMPLE AND THE FACTS ARE REAL, AND THEY DO INDICATE US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY AND COVERUP IN 9/11.
It is a smoking gun, it has legs, and this dog can hunt. |
I'm sorry you've competely lost me.
You posted a large article about the difference in the crash times AT THE WTC as given by seismic data, and those given in the 9/11 commission report.
I showed that the data from the seismologists was found to have to much background noise to accurately determine the impact times. Therefore, there is no problem with the differing times, because one source, the seismic data, is inaccurate.
What does this have to do with the Pentagon?
Is it just me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"I am speaking of loud bangs (certainly not wind noise) that occured jus before the collapse."
"Hmm, loud bangs from a collapsing building, my god, that's crazy."
Is the above what is known as critical thinking?
Looks morelike a severe reading comprehension problem or cognitive dissonance. Probably both.
I'll quote him again and bold the word for you so you can understand (perhaps)
"I am speaking of loud bangs (certainly not wind noise) that occured jus before the collapse."
i.e not 'a collapsing building'
And that is the crux of this thread. Read the first post again:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2964
and this time get beyond sentence 3 before running off to 911myths to do some more 'critical thinking'...
_________________
Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pikey wrote: | JP states:-
| Quote: | | There is no need for a second investigation. What would it look at? |
It would look at ALL the availble evidence.
Like the footage from all the cameras at the Pentagon.
If after analysing the evidence, such as that produced by the cameras at the Pentagon, it would either confirm the official version that the pictures show a Boeing 757 or that a 757 is not shown.
Hope that clarifies that issue JP.
Finally could you explain to me:-
1. why you are here if you believe there is no need for a second investigation, and
2. do you believe that the Keane Commission report was done by people with a bona fide agenda to expose the truth, i.e were these people independent of the Neo Cons/Bush administration?
Peace & truth |
1. I am here because there are people spreading lies and disinformation about 9/11. It annoys me, so I'm trying to do something about it.
2. Yes. Just because the report doesn't say what you want doesn't make it untrue, or a conspiracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin wrote: | Johnny Pixels wrote:
| Quote: | I'll assure you I don't work for the government, I live in the South-East of England, but I won't give you my address or my phone number, because
it won't prove anything. My arguments are against the lack of factual evidence. Knowing my address won't change the laws of physics. |
Johnny Pixels old chap,
Please send a PO Box No. then if you won't give us your true name and address so that I can send you three white feathers as a mark of my undying respect towards you.
Justin walker
Bower Bank
Dent,
Cumbria
LA10 5QQ |
I appreciate the gesture, but giving out my address doesn't change anything. It won't prove that I'm genuine or not.
Unless you're all expecting me to write
Johnny Pixels
Disinformation Department
Shill Division
The Pentagon
USA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scar wrote: | "I am speaking of loud bangs (certainly not wind noise) that occured jus before the collapse."
"Hmm, loud bangs from a collapsing building, my god, that's crazy."
Is the above what is known as critical thinking?
Looks morelike a severe reading comprehension problem or cognitive dissonance. Probably both.
I'll quote him again and bold the word for you so you can understand (perhaps)
"I am speaking of loud bangs (certainly not wind noise) that occured jus before the collapse."
i.e not 'a collapsing building'
And that is the crux of this thread. Read the first post again:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2964
and this time get beyond sentence 3 before running off to 911myths to do some more 'critical thinking'... |
Cognitive dissonance eh? You've got that word of the day toilet paper too?
I'll rephrase that then. Loud bangs from a building about to collapse. My god, how crazy, that something should break, and then crikey, the building, he fall down.
Yes. Loud bang, building fall. Thing break, building fall down.
It's not really that surprising that something should break just before a building collapses. And that thing makes a bang. Crazy.
Cognitive dissonance...I'll have to look that one up... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Pikey wrote: |
1. why you are here if you believe there is no need for a second investigation, and
2. do you believe that the Keane Commission report was done by people with a bona fide agenda to expose the truth, i.e were these people independent of the Neo Cons/Bush administration?
Peace & truth[/color] |
1. I am here because there are people spreading lies and disinformation about 9/11. It annoys me, so I'm trying to do something about it.
2. Yes. Just because the report doesn't say what you want doesn't make it untrue, or a conspiracy. |
1: Arguing here wont make a shred of difference. Especially as you are only amplifying the lies and disinformation with every ignorant post.
You are not being objective.
2: 'The Keane Commission report was done by people with a bona fide agenda to expose the truth, i.e were these people independent of the Neo Cons/Bush administration? Yes? 
nuff said.
Cognitive dissonance is a strange phenomenon. I hope you recover from it sometime...once you've worked out what it means of course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scar wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Pikey wrote: |
1. why you are here if you believe there is no need for a second investigation, and
2. do you believe that the Keane Commission report was done by people with a bona fide agenda to expose the truth, i.e were these people independent of the Neo Cons/Bush administration?
Peace & truth[/color] |
1. I am here because there are people spreading lies and disinformation about 9/11. It annoys me, so I'm trying to do something about it.
2. Yes. Just because the report doesn't say what you want doesn't make it untrue, or a conspiracy. |
1: Arguing here wont make a shred of difference. Especially as you are only amplifying the lies and disinformation with every ignorant post.
You are not being objective.
2: 'The Keane Commission report was done by people with a bona fide agenda to expose the truth, i.e were these people independent of the Neo Cons/Bush administration? Yes?
nuff said.
Cognitive dissonance is a strange phenomenon. I hope you recover from it sometime...once you've worked out what it means of course. |
So why do you post here? Oh I see, you don't post to argue your beliefs, merely because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside to keep being told you are right. Because you've spent so much time learning about the 9/11 conspiracy, and how all these facts from the official reoprts are lies, when someone shows you that you are wrong you experience...cognitive dissonance.
Thanks. I knew there had to people a word for people like you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here ya go Johnny some basics:
"Cognitions which contradict each other are said to be "dissonant," while cognitions which agree with each other are said to be "consonant." Cognitions which neither agree nor disagree with each other are said to be "irrelevant." (Festinger, 1957)
The introduction of new cognition that is dissonant with a currently held cognition creates a state of "dissonance," the magnitude of which relates to the relative importance of the involved cognitions. Dissonance can be reduced either by eliminating dissonant cognitions, or by adding new consonant cognitions. The maximum possible dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant cognition; therefore, once dissonance reaches a level that overcomes the resistance of one of the cognitions involved, that cognition will be changed or eliminated, and dissonance will be reduced.
This leads some people who feel dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance and avoid information that will increase dissonance. People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it."
then again:
"people would not experience dissonance in this situation if their self-concept involved perception of the self as a liar." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Suggestion:
Do not post ANY MORE TO THIS THREAD.
I could be totally wrong, but I think we may be talking to a machine. Yeah, laughter is good, I know. I'm used to being called crazy these days.
Johnny Pixels has failed the identity challenge. I feel that, if push came to shove, we would all reveal our identity for the sake of the truth.
He has failed this test. Move on.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Johnny Pixels wrote:
'Hmm. The seismic data showed only evidence of impacts and collapse, none of explosions. The timing of the impact on the seismic data and official report differ because the background noise meant that the seismic data was unsuitable for determining the time. And the seismologists admit this.'
This quote actually proves quicknthedead's point. The Flight 93 seismic data had too weak a signal to noise ratio for the impact despite the plane colliding with the ground. The data from LDEO has pronounced spikes representing the 'plane impacts' even though they occurred high on WTC.
Therefore the spikes in the LDEO data were not caused by the plane impacts - they were too pronounced from the background noise. This possibly helps to explain why they didn't match up to the known time of plane impacts in the FAA data.
The question is - what caused these spikes in the LDEO data? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scar wrote: | Here ya go Johnny some basics:
"Cognitions which contradict each other are said to be "dissonant," while cognitions which agree with each other are said to be "consonant." Cognitions which neither agree nor disagree with each other are said to be "irrelevant." (Festinger, 1957)
The introduction of new cognition that is dissonant with a currently held cognition creates a state of "dissonance," the magnitude of which relates to the relative importance of the involved cognitions. Dissonance can be reduced either by eliminating dissonant cognitions, or by adding new consonant cognitions. The maximum possible dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant cognition; therefore, once dissonance reaches a level that overcomes the resistance of one of the cognitions involved, that cognition will be changed or eliminated, and dissonance will be reduced.
This leads some people who feel dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance and avoid information that will increase dissonance. People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it."
then again:
"people would not experience dissonance in this situation if their self-concept involved perception of the self as a liar." |
Well thank Wikipedia for that. I could've been stuck in a state of resonant dissonance for ever. Luckily for me I've my eyes opened. It was all a conspiracy I tells ya. They sneaked in the explosives under the cover of power downs. And there was no 757 at the pentagon, it was an A1 Skyraider. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Suggestion:
Do not post ANY MORE TO THIS THREAD.
I could be totally wrong, but I think we may be talking to a machine. Yeah, laughter is good, I know. I'm used to being called crazy these days.
Johnny Pixels has failed the identity challenge. I feel that, if push came to shove, we would all reveal our identity for the sake of the truth.
He has failed this test. Move on. |
Oh that's a good suggestion:
"I have no arguments or evidence, therefore lets stop posting and make out its because some guy doesn't want to post his address on the internet for any old whacko to read."
My identity has no bearing on things like the laws of physics. They'd be the same if I was Don Johnson, Peter Grant, Jonathan Edwards or the Marquis of Queensbury. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leiff wrote: | Johnny Pixels wrote:
'Hmm. The seismic data showed only evidence of impacts and collapse, none of explosions. The timing of the impact on the seismic data and official report differ because the background noise meant that the seismic data was unsuitable for determining the time. And the seismologists admit this.'
This quote actually proves quicknthedead's point. The Flight 93 seismic data had too weak a signal to noise ratio for the impact despite the plane colliding with the ground. The data from LDEO has pronounced spikes representing the 'plane impacts' even though they occurred high on WTC.
Therefore the spikes in the LDEO data were not caused by the plane impacts - they were too pronounced from the background noise. This possibly helps to explain why they didn't match up to the known time of plane impacts in the FAA data.
The question is - what caused these spikes in the LDEO data? |
The plane impacts caused the spikes.
Look at the impacts, see the force of the impact explosions. If that force didn't cause a spike on the seismograph, then imagine how much bigger the suggested explosives explosion would have to be to make the spikes that were there. Somebody would've felt that, but they didn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
quicknthedead
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin wrote: | Johnny Pixels wrote:
| Quote: | I'll assure you I don't work for the government, I live in the South-East of England, but I won't give you my address or my phone number, because
it won't prove anything. My arguments are against the lack of factual evidence. Knowing my address won't change the laws of physics. |
Johnny Pixels old chap,
Please send a PO Box No. then if you won't give us your true name and address so that I can send you three white feathers as a mark of my undying respect towards you.
Justin walker
Bower Bank
Dent,
Cumbria
LA10 5QQ |
Folks,
Please. Can't you see Johnny Boy for what he really is. He is not forthright and does not want to reason with you.
If you’re going to communicate with the enemy, you should respond quickly and make him do all the work. All he wants is to make everyone waste their time trying to reason with him. This is a tried and true tactic they use, so that in the long run, the deception continues because your energy is being wasted.
Deal with him with the quick!
As Jimi Hendrix wrote,
“CHOP IT DOWN WITH THE EDGE OF MY HAND”
Do the same. All he deserves is the brushoff; nothing more, nothing less. Let him waste HIS time. Don't you waste yours.
Instead, seriously work on exposing the 9/11 fraud and coverup (and not just on this forum).
You do know the enemy truly exists, don’t you. Well, then, take your belief and start taking a hard look at Johnny Boy.
Remember, Johnny Boy said, "What evidence?"
He is a dissembler and works for the other side.
Deal with him like Jimi wrote because he isn't reasoning with you, so don't play his game.
Just some friendly advice.
quicknthedead
BUT I SAY TO YOU, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES
AND PRAY FOR THOSE WHO PERSECUTE YOU
_________________
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paul wright
Moderator
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Leiff wrote: | Johnny Pixels wrote:
'Hmm. The seismic data showed only evidence of impacts and collapse, none of explosions. The timing of the impact on the seismic data and official report differ because the background noise meant that the seismic data was unsuitable for determining the time. And the seismologists admit this.'
This quote actually proves quicknthedead's point. The Flight 93 seismic data had too weak a signal to noise ratio for the impact despite the plane colliding with the ground. The data from LDEO has pronounced spikes representing the 'plane impacts' even though they occurred high on WTC.
Therefore the spikes in the LDEO data were not caused by the plane impacts - they were too pronounced from the background noise. This possibly helps to explain why they didn't match up to the known time of plane impacts in the FAA data.
The question is - what caused these spikes in the LDEO data? |
The plane impacts caused the spikes.
Look at the impacts, see the force of the impact explosions. If that force didn't cause a spike on the seismograph, then imagine how much bigger the suggested explosives explosion would have to be to make the spikes that were there. Somebody would've felt that, but they didn't. |
The plane impacts caused the spikes?
Of course they didn't JP. There's very little in a horizontal impact to cause a downward vibration sufficient to cause a seismic record
As well you know
Stop talking nonsense
We know your sort
_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
quicknthedead
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dh wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Leiff wrote: | Johnny Pixels wrote:
'Hmm. The seismic data showed only evidence of impacts and collapse, none of explosions. The timing of the impact on the seismic data and official report differ because the background noise meant that the seismic data was unsuitable for determining the time. And the seismologists admit this.'
This quote actually proves quicknthedead's point. The Flight 93 seismic data had too weak a signal to noise ratio for the impact despite the plane colliding with the ground. The data from LDEO has pronounced spikes representing the 'plane impacts' even though they occurred high on WTC.
Therefore the spikes in the LDEO data were not caused by the plane impacts - they were too pronounced from the background noise. This possibly helps to explain why they didn't match up to the known time of plane impacts in the FAA data.
The question is - what caused these spikes in the LDEO data? |
The plane impacts caused the spikes.
Look at the impacts, see the force of the impact explosions. If that force didn't cause a spike on the seismograph, then imagine how much bigger the suggested explosives explosion would have to be to make the spikes that were there. Somebody would've felt that, but they didn't. |
The plane impacts caused the spikes?
Of course they didn't JP. There's very little in a horizontal impact to cause a downward vibration sufficient to cause a seismic record
As well you know
Stop talking nonsense
We know your sort |
That's it, dh! I like your avatar too--nice smile!
_________________
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| quicknthedead wrote: |
Folks,
Please. Can't you see Johnny Boy for what he really is. He is not forthright and does not want to reason with you.
If you’re going to communicate with the enemy, you should respond quickly and make him do all the work. All he wants is to make everyone waste their time trying to reason with him. This is a tried and true tactic they use, so that in the long run, the deception continues because your energy is being wasted. |
No, I want people to see that they've been lied to by these people purveying conspiracy theories. Theories that don't hold any water.
I believe your tactic is to accuse me of these things, so you can escape the fact that I showed you were wrong.
| Quote: | Deal with him with the quick!
As Jimi Hendrix wrote,
“CHOP IT DOWN WITH THE EDGE OF MY HAND” |
Jimi may be a god, but he's not really suited to this debate.
| Quote: | Do the same. All he deserves is the brushoff; nothing more, nothing less. Let him waste HIS time. Don't you waste yours.
Instead, seriously work on exposing the 9/11 fraud and coverup (and not just on this forum). |
Now this is a major problem you have. I'm just one person, and I can smack down your conspiracy theories with quite some ease. Just wait until you come up against someone who's an expert in the field. They'll just laugh at you because your theories don't work.
| Quote: | | You do know the enemy truly exists, don’t you. Well, then, take your belief and start taking a hard look at Johnny Boy. |
A good ad hom attack there, well done. Keep it up and keep drawing attention away from your now sinking argument about time discrepancies.
| Quote: |
Remember, Johnny Boy said, "What evidence?"
He is a dissembler and works for the other side. |
Which side is that? Of sorry, this is just another ad hom to draw attention away from your argument that you've given up on because it was wrong.
| Quote: | | Deal with him like Jimi wrote because he isn't reasoning with you, so don't play his game. |
Jimi said I was like Crosstown traffic? Oh sorry, your're just drawing attention away from the fact that I sunk your argument.
PS I sunk your argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dh wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | Leiff wrote: | Johnny Pixels wrote:
'Hmm. The seismic data showed only evidence of impacts and collapse, none of explosions. The timing of the impact on the seismic data and official report differ because the background noise meant that the seismic data was unsuitable for determining the time. And the seismologists admit this.'
This quote actually proves quicknthedead's point. The Flight 93 seismic data had too weak a signal to noise ratio for the impact despite the plane colliding with the ground. The data from LDEO has pronounced spikes representing the 'plane impacts' even though they occurred high on WTC.
Therefore the spikes in the LDEO data were not caused by the plane impacts - they were too pronounced from the background noise. This possibly helps to explain why they didn't match up to the known time of plane impacts in the FAA data.
The question is - what caused these spikes in the LDEO data? |
The plane impacts caused the spikes.
Look at the impacts, see the force of the impact explosions. If that force didn't cause a spike on the seismograph, then imagine how much bigger the suggested explosives explosion would have to be to make the spikes that were there. Somebody would've felt that, but they didn't. |
The plane impacts caused the spikes?
Of course they didn't JP. There's very little in a horizontal impact to cause a downward vibration sufficient to cause a seismic record
As well you know
Stop talking nonsense
We know your sort |
I'm sorry. What?
So plane that hits a tower, doesn't cause the tower to vibrate, and so that vibration isn't transferred to the ground by the concrete foundations?
There is no downward vibration required. This would be a pressure wave, caused by the tower moving back and forth after the impact and explosion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think he has been exposed for what he is. And this lesson can therefore, to me, be an even clearer indication of what we are dealing with.
Either a machine, or someone who behaves very much like one.
I think the name and photo are subtle clues to what is "hidden in plain site"
Take heed.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
quicknthedead
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | quicknthedead wrote: |
Folks,
Please. Can't you see Johnny Boy for what he really is. He is not forthright and does not want to reason with you.
If you’re going to communicate with the enemy, you should respond quickly and make him do all the work. All he wants is to make everyone waste their time trying to reason with him. This is a tried and true tactic they use, so that in the long run, the deception continues because your energy is being wasted. |
No, I want people to see that they've been lied to by these people purveying conspiracy theories. Theories that don't hold any water.
I believe your tactic is to accuse me of these things, so you can escape the fact that I showed you were wrong.
| Quote: | Deal with him with the quick!
As Jimi Hendrix wrote,
“CHOP IT DOWN WITH THE EDGE OF MY HAND” |
Jimi may be a god, but he's not really suited to this debate.
| Quote: | Do the same. All he deserves is the brushoff; nothing more, nothing less. Let him waste HIS time. Don't you waste yours.
Instead, seriously work on exposing the 9/11 fraud and coverup (and not just on this forum). |
Now this is a major problem you have. I'm just one person, and I can smack down your conspiracy theories with quite some ease. Just wait until you come up against someone who's an expert in the field. They'll just laugh at you because your theories don't work.
| Quote: | | You do know the enemy truly exists, don’t you. Well, then, take your belief and start taking a hard look at Johnny Boy. |
A good ad hom attack there, well done. Keep it up and keep drawing attention away from your now sinking argument about time discrepancies.
| Quote: |
Remember, Johnny Boy said, "What evidence?"
He is a dissembler and works for the other side. |
Which side is that? Of sorry, this is just another ad hom to draw attention away from your argument that you've given up on because it was wrong.
| Quote: | | Deal with him like Jimi wrote because he isn't reasoning with you, so don't play his game. |
Jimi said I was like Crosstown traffic? Oh sorry, your're just drawing attention away from the fact that I sunk your argument.
PS I sunk your argument. |
There it is, folks!
See how easy it is to make him waste his time instead of yours! 
_________________
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | I think he has been exposed for what he is. And this lesson can therefore, to me, be an even clearer indication of what we are dealing with.
Either a machine, or someone who behaves very much like one.
Take heed. |
01001111 01101000 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00101100 00100000 01100111 01110010 01101111 01110111 00100000 01110101 01110000 00101110 00100000 01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01100101 00100000 01110011 01101111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110010 01100101 01110011 01101111 01110010 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101111 01101100 01100100 00100000 01101000 01100101 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 00101100 00100000 01101111 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110011 01101000 01101001 01101100 01101100 00101110 00100000 01010111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100001 01100010 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01100001 01110100 01110100 01100001 01100011 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110000 01101111 01110011 01110100 01100101 01110010 00101100 00100000 01101111 01110010 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100111 01110011 00100000 01110011 01110101 01100011 01101000 00100000 01100001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01110000 01100101 01101111 01110000 01101100 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01100001 01100111 01110010 01100101 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 00100000 01110011 01101111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101011 01101001 01100011 01101011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101101 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00111111
Last edited by Johnny Pixels on Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| quicknthedead wrote: |
There it is, folks!
See how easy it is to make him waste his time instead of yours! |
You're just bitter because I sunk your argument. I can't actually believe that this thread descended into calling me names so soon after I destroyed your lovely article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
quicknthedead
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | quicknthedead wrote: |
There it is, folks!
See how easy it is to make him waste his time instead of yours! |
You're just bitter because I sunk your argument. I can't actually believe that this thread descended into calling me names so soon after I destroyed your lovely article. |
In your dreams, pal.
_________________
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| quicknthedead wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | quicknthedead wrote: |
There it is, folks!
See how easy it is to make him waste his time instead of yours! |
You're just bitter because I sunk your argument. I can't actually believe that this thread descended into calling me names so soon after I destroyed your lovely article. |
In your dreams, pal. |
I see you've stopped arguing it though, right after I showed you it was wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
quicknthedead
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Johnny Pixels wrote: | | quicknthedead wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | | quicknthedead wrote: |
There it is, folks!
See how easy it is to make him waste his time instead of yours! |
You're just bitter because I sunk your argument. I can't actually believe that this thread descended into calling me names so soon after I destroyed your lovely article. |
In your dreams, pal. |
I see you've stopped arguing it though, right after I showed you it was wrong. |
What names would that be?
_________________
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah yes, the "comedy" picture post, followed by a request to watch a video. I like the way the "truth" movement is based upon watching videos.
This is why I accept the official account, because they name all their sources, amke their results public, actually carry out tests.
Any one with a camera can post a video a video on Google Video. It doesn't make it true.
So where in the video does it say about ground shaking explosions? I'm not going to watch a whole hour of it, just direct me to the time when there's the bit about there being enough explosives to cause a seismic spike larger than an aircraft crashing into the WTC, because remember, there are only two "impact spikes", so the plane impact must be tiny compared to the Explosives explosion, because the impacts don't even show up on the traces, but these big booms do. They must have been big.
Which makes me think. The video of the fiefighters checking a manhole, who look up to see the plane impact. They make no mention of a massive explosion just before the impact. You'd think they'd notice that, especially being firemen, and being concerned about explosions and stuff, and yet no mention whatsoever. None.
Spooky that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
quicknthedead
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, scar.
Here is another excellent video if you haven't seen it. I especially like the music; makes me think of the battle we are in : (give it a few moments to load as it's a little slow in the very beginning, but once it gets going it's a great video)
Listen up, JP. The song's for you too!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8076200333701191665
_________________
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| quicknthedead wrote: |
Thanks, scar.
Here is another excellent video if you haven't seen it. I especially like the music; makes me think of the battle we are in : (give it a few moments to load as it's a little slow in the very beginning, but once it gets going it's a great video)
Listen up, JP. The song's for you too!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8076200333701191665 |
That's it, run out of argument, so wheel out the videos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
