FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Should Critics Corner be closed and it's occupants evicted?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should Critics Corner be banned and it's occupants evicted?
Yes
28%
 28%  [ 8 ]
No
71%
 71%  [ 20 ]
Other
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 28

Author Message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
John White wrote:
jackchit wrote:
Quote:
There are two accepted spellings of it, and you missed them both.

wow the spelling police are rife here, although you prove my point that nit picking is all you cretins are capable of.
Nice post, well done...


"Occams Razor" is a central tennant of the sceptics faith

Mispelling it is the same as spelling "Jehovah" as "c*cksucker" to a religous person Wink

I expect you mean "tenet" really!


No mate, I'm so naturally generous I put it in so you'd have something to do Cool

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:18 am    Post subject: A shill Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:


If you can't see it by now then what is the point, look around you there is plenty of evidence that the 911 comissions report was floored, so even if you are not convinced that 911 was a self inflicted wound you should still be calling for a proper open inquiry/investigation, or is the loss of 3000 lives plus the deaths in wars as a result, not good enough for you?
The problem with people like you is you are simply here to disagree and nothing else.

You are trying to change the subject again. Clearly you are not able actually to point out any unaddressed evidence. This is unsurprising. All the alleged evidence that 9/11 was an inside job simply crumbles into dust when examined. There were flaws in the way the commission was originally established and Bush's attitude to it was appalling, but in the end it did a reasonable job. Nothing that has since emerged casts any substantial doubt on its main conclusions, and the NIST investigations into the building failures have been as thorough as they could be. I see no purpose whatsoever in another investigation. It would be far better to devote yourself to crticising Bush's disastrous foreign policies than attacking him on a subject where actually he is innocent and therefore unassailable.[/quote]

Bushwacker has the label 'wacker' but what he implies is Bush lickspittle.
A characteristic of a shill is one who uses an 'anti-american' label, even dressed in islamic garb and goes round defending the central points of the 'war of terror'...

Defending Bush is the purpose, by defending him on 9/11 for without one we wouldn't have had a change in the foreign policy regarding pre-emptive wars.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:35 am    Post subject: Re: A shill Reply with quote

conspirator wrote:

Bushwacker has the label 'wacker' but what he implies is Bush lickspittle.
A characteristic of a shill is one who uses an 'anti-american' label, even dressed in islamic garb and goes round defending the central points of the 'war of terror'...

Defending Bush is the purpose, by defending him on 9/11 for without one we wouldn't have had a change in the foreign policy regarding pre-emptive wars.


Ahh the old tactic, dismiss critics as shills. You realise that you all appear to be shills for the Democrat party, because you campaign so vigourously to oust Bush and the Republicans. So how's the Democrat pay cheque working out? You get those special services like Clinton did? Is that why you're doing this? It is isn't it? For the money and those extra perks. Mindlessly trolling out the line supplied by your Democrat handlers, and those bastions of truth Dylan Avery and Alex Jones, being used, but you don't care as long as that pay cheque keeps coming in and you keep feeling like you're making a difference in the world.

See, I can make stupid allegations too.

_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see Conspirator has still failed to produce any unaddressed evidence, there clearly is none.

And I have the firm belief that Hitler did not commit the Jack-the-ripper murders. To Conspirator that must mean I am a Hitler lick-spittle and Nazi party shill, but I can cope with that!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:04 am    Post subject: Heres the evidence... Reply with quote

http://www.rense.com/

even if the US admitted to the crime of the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl harbour, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the 9/11 wars, pro-american shills would still argue the opposite...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:16 am    Post subject: Re: Heres the evidence... Reply with quote

conspirator wrote:
http://www.rense.com/

even if the US admitted to the crime of the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl harbour, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the 9/11 wars, pro-american shills would still argue the opposite...


That's their job. Still you wouldn't wanna be one of them.
After reading this, some of them might decide a job flipping burgers might be a good emergency career change right now just in case the whole association thing goes against them. I'll leave it unsourced to give them the extra work Smile

"In the event this false flag attack occurs and this nuclear attack is ordered or implemented, then there are 250,000 retired and active duty military personel, primarily navy seals and special forces, in position to arrest and hold both Bush and Cheney on charges of treason and a long list of war crimes during the last five years. There are written dossiers on all the men and women in the Administration and Congress that would also be arrested and charged with treason and war crimes including the events and crimes on 9/11/01. Then an entire list of statutes and laws passed by Congress like the Patriot Acts and the Presidential Executive Orders in conflict with the Constitution and all its Ammendments will be rescinded."

My God, who'd ever have imagined we'd be living in times when a military coup in the West seemed the saner option.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:24 am    Post subject: Re: Heres the evidence... Reply with quote

conspirator wrote:
http://www.rense.com/

even if the US admitted to the crime of the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl harbour, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the 9/11 wars, pro-american shills would still argue the opposite...

No unaddressed evidence, then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:21 am    Post subject: Re: Heres the evidence... Reply with quote

conspirator wrote:
http://www.rense.com/

even if the US admitted to the crime of the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl harbour, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the 9/11 wars, pro-american shills would still argue the opposite...


Jeff Rense not only makes funny anti-Bush pics. He also is a UFO-nut and unapologetic anti-semite. If you think I'm wrong go check his site. He seems to think the neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel is some kind of free-speech victim.

Ole Jeff is the king of Woo. That he's also "in-bedded" with the troothers as well as every other kind of nut that comes down the pike is not really very surprising.

-z

_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bicnarok
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 334
Location: Cydonia

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No not at all.


Without criticism no truth can come out. Things have to be scrutinised and not only by belivievers.

I enjoy critics corner because it gives a different view on the whole picture.

_________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind..." Bod Marley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Charliemouse
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 03 Oct 2006
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont think critics corner should be banned because it helps people that are new to the 911 lie.

It was three months ago that i descovered that 911 was an inside job and i will never forget the first week after my descovery. I was in shock and suddenly diddnt know what to believe but i realised something was terrably wrong.

I think alot of people in critics corner are like rabits caught in the headlights of a very large lorry. They are in shock and denial like i was but atleast they can get a response to thair questions and thaughts even if what they say is deluded.

They need your help, they want to know more but are afrade of where all this new information is taking them. I have read some very agressive responses to critics questions and thaughts which is a shame but try to think of them as people who are learning a very painfull truth and try to be patient, after all they have to be taught somewhere.

_________________
George Orwell eat your heart out
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Charliemouse wrote:
I dont think critics corner should be banned because it helps people that are new to the 911 lie.

It was three months ago that i descovered that 911 was an inside job and i will never forget the first week after my descovery. I was in shock and suddenly diddnt know what to believe but i realised something was terrably wrong.

I think alot of people in critics corner are like rabits caught in the headlights of a very large lorry. They are in shock and denial like i was but atleast they can get a response to thair questions and thaughts even if what they say is deluded.

They need your help, they want to know more but are afrade of where all this new information is taking them. I have read some very agressive responses to critics questions and thaughts which is a shame but try to think of them as people who are learning a very painfull truth and try to be patient, after all they have to be taught somewhere.


Hi CM and welcome to the site.

What you'll notice after a while is that there are many sorts here in Critics Corner, a few of them listed below as:

Those who have genuine questions querying the whole idea of a conspiracy;

the intellectual gamers who scoff at the very notion that there can even be such a thing as conspiracy theories;

the disinfo agents who counter any questioning of the Official Story with ... well whatever their latest handbook tells them;

then you have the normal internet trolls who like to just troll and waste time for their own amusement;

and then you have the more genuine truthers in here countering the arguments.

Stick around long enough and you'll soon be able to tell who is who.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
After reading this, some of them might decide a job flipping burgers might be a good emergency career change right now just in case the whole association thing goes against them.
I would think that would be the worst possible job to take, seeing as how many truthers are likely be among your coworkers. I'd rather work with engineers and firefighters, where truthers seem rather scarce.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:04 am    Post subject: Re: Heres the evidence... Reply with quote

Jay Ref wrote:
conspirator wrote:
http://www.rense.com/

even if the US admitted to the crime of the sinking of the Lusitania, Pearl harbour, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the 9/11 wars, pro-american shills would still argue the opposite...


Jeff Rense not only makes funny anti-Bush pics. He also is a UFO-nut and unapologetic anti-semite. If you think I'm wrong go check his site. He seems to think the neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel is some kind of free-speech victim.

Ole Jeff is the king of Woo. That he's also "in-bedded" with the troothers as well as every other kind of nut that comes down the pike is not really very surprising.

-z


In the age of the corporate take over of the world anyone or anything that says anything opposite is labelled a ...nazi.

Fascism wouldn't necessarily re-emerge exactly the same way again.

History doesn't repeat itself in such a linear way. But the essence of fascism which is the Big Lie (9-11 Al Qaeda etc) differs not one jot from the fascism of old.

Wars for resources, illegal invasions and destruction ad nauseum continue till today.

Now the Yanks are talking about exterminating 2 million Shias in Baghdad.

Quote:
At the center of the crisis talks are plans for a military assault on densely populated neighborhoods in the capital city, where anti-American insurgents and militia are entrenched, beginning with Sadr City, the home of some 2 million impoverished Shia and the stronghold of the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.




http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/iraq-o24.shtml
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:39 am    Post subject: Re: Heres the evidence... Reply with quote

conspirator wrote:

Quote:
At the center of the crisis talks are plans for a military assault on densely populated neighborhoods in the capital city, where anti-American insurgents and militia are entrenched, beginning with Sadr City, the home of some 2 million impoverished Shia and the stronghold of the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.




http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/iraq-o24.shtml


"World Socialist Web Site"? Sounds like an objective and unbiased source.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pepik
Banned
Banned


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even if we accept the World Socialist Worker, the article doesn't say anthing about exterminating 2 million people. Maybe you posted the wrong link?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chek wrote:
Charliemouse wrote:
I dont think critics corner should be banned because it helps people that are new to the 911 lie.

It was three months ago that i descovered that 911 was an inside job and i will never forget the first week after my descovery. I was in shock and suddenly diddnt know what to believe but i realised something was terrably wrong.

I think alot of people in critics corner are like rabits caught in the headlights of a very large lorry. They are in shock and denial like i was but atleast they can get a response to thair questions and thaughts even if what they say is deluded.

They need your help, they want to know more but are afrade of where all this new information is taking them. I have read some very agressive responses to critics questions and thaughts which is a shame but try to think of them as people who are learning a very painfull truth and try to be patient, after all they have to be taught somewhere.


Hi CM and welcome to the site.

What you'll notice after a while is that there are many sorts here in Critics Corner, a few of them listed below as:

Those who have genuine questions querying the whole idea of a conspiracy;

the intellectual gamers who scoff at the very notion that there can even be such a thing as conspiracy theories;

the disinfo agents who counter any questioning of the Official Story with ... well whatever their latest handbook tells them;

then you have the normal internet trolls who like to just troll and waste time for their own amusement;

and then you have the more genuine truthers in here countering the arguments.

and we mustn't forget the fanatical troothers who damn us to Hell and express their desire to see us hanging from lampposts;

or the intellectually dishonest troothers who dismiss mountains of evidence and painstakingly transparent, well-documented investigation in favor of rumor-based innuendo, petty hole-poking, and interpretations of evidence that lead to incoherence and absurdity.

Quote:
Stick around long enough and you'll soon be able to tell who is who.

_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And then you have the 'truthers' who have no tolerance for those who like to give the impression of detachment while somehow always acting as the apologists for treason and murder.

And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chek wrote:

And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.


That would be me then. And you have the evidence to back this claim up...where? You haven't shown us any evidence for this at all Chek. You wouldn't be being dishonest would you Chek? Show us the evidence for this claim. Show all those new to the site how it's the critics who make things up, and the enlightend truth seekers like yourself that have the facts on their side. Show them.

_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:
chek wrote:

And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.


That would be me then. And you have the evidence to back this claim up...where? You haven't shown us any evidence for this at all Chek. You wouldn't be being dishonest would you Chek? Show us the evidence for this claim. Show all those new to the site how it's the critics who make things up, and the enlightend truth seekers like yourself that have the facts on their side. Show them.


I should also have added:
"And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.
There's only one reason I can see for such deception."

It's in NIST's report, oh lying shill.
Go look for it, through all four feet thick of it.
It's in there.
That's your first punishment.
I'll leave it to whatever conscience you might have for the rest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must say that part of the NIST report was an excellent find.
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chek wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
chek wrote:

And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.


That would be me then. And you have the evidence to back this claim up...where? You haven't shown us any evidence for this at all Chek. You wouldn't be being dishonest would you Chek? Show us the evidence for this claim. Show all those new to the site how it's the critics who make things up, and the enlightend truth seekers like yourself that have the facts on their side. Show them.


I should also have added:
"And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.
There's only one reason I can see for such deception."

It's in NIST's report, oh lying shill.
Go look for it, through all four feet thick of it.
It's in there.
That's your first punishment.
I'll leave it to whatever conscience you might have for the rest.


You can't tell me where it is? Are you sure it exists? Or are you lying? Post the evidence. It's your claim, you prove it.

_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is this what you were talking about?

Quote:
Buildings are not designed to withstand the impact of
fuel-laden commercial airliners. However, Port
Authority documents indicate that the impact of a
Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph and possibly crashing
into the 80th floor had been analyzed during the
design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964.
While NIST has not found evidence of the analysis, the
documents state that such a collision would result in
localized damage only, and that it would not cause
collapse or substantial damage to the WTC towers.
The effect of fires due to jet fuel dispersion and ignition
of building contents was not considered in the
1964 analysis
. Loss of life in the immediate area of
aircraft impact was anticipated, but loss of life from fire
and smoke was not considered.


So, no evidence for that claim.

_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:
chek wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
chek wrote:

And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.


That would be me then. And you have the evidence to back this claim up...where? You haven't shown us any evidence for this at all Chek. You wouldn't be being dishonest would you Chek? Show us the evidence for this claim. Show all those new to the site how it's the critics who make things up, and the enlightend truth seekers like yourself that have the facts on their side. Show them.


I should also have added:
"And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.
There's only one reason I can see for such deception."

It's in NIST's report, oh lying shill.
Go look for it, through all four feet thick of it.
It's in there.
That's your first punishment.
I'll leave it to whatever conscience you might have for the rest.


You can't tell me where it is? Are you sure it exists? Or are you lying? Post the evidence. It's your claim, you prove it.


On the contrary you lying shill, it's your lie,you prove it.
Of course, you can't prove a lie.
So get reading shill.
It should keep you out of trouble a long, long time while you ponder the error of your ways and what your life had become.

No matter how 'important' those you cover for are, remember, it's your soul. Nobody else has responsibility for it.
Just you.
And when you find it, you can come back here and apologise to everyone.
You've got a lot of reading ahead.
Get going.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chek wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
chek wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
chek wrote:

And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.


That would be me then. And you have the evidence to back this claim up...where? You haven't shown us any evidence for this at all Chek. You wouldn't be being dishonest would you Chek? Show us the evidence for this claim. Show all those new to the site how it's the critics who make things up, and the enlightend truth seekers like yourself that have the facts on their side. Show them.


I should also have added:
"And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.
There's only one reason I can see for such deception."

It's in NIST's report, oh lying shill.
Go look for it, through all four feet thick of it.
It's in there.
That's your first punishment.
I'll leave it to whatever conscience you might have for the rest.


You can't tell me where it is? Are you sure it exists? Or are you lying? Post the evidence. It's your claim, you prove it.


On the contrary you lying shill, it's your lie,you prove it.
Of course, you can't prove a lie.
So get reading shill.
It should keep you out of trouble a long, long time while you ponder the error of your ways and what your life had become.

No matter how 'important' those you cover for are, remember, it's your soul. Nobody else has responsibility for it.
Just you.
And when you find it, you can come back here and apologise to everyone.
You've got a lot of reading ahead.
Get going.


Erm no, you are the one that claims the buildings could withstand 500mph impacts, so you show me why you think that. Unless it's the extract I posted above, in which case there is no evidence for it.

_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:
Is this what you were talking about?

Quote:
Buildings are not designed to withstand the impact of
fuel-laden commercial airliners. However, Port
Authority documents indicate that the impact of a
Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph and possibly crashing
into the 80th floor had been analyzed during the
design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964.
While NIST has not found evidence of the analysis, the
documents state that such a collision would result in
localized damage only, and that it would not cause
collapse or substantial damage to the WTC towers.
The effect of fires due to jet fuel dispersion and ignition
of building contents was not considered in the
1964 analysis
. Loss of life in the immediate area of
aircraft impact was anticipated, but loss of life from fire
and smoke was not considered.


So, no evidence for that claim.


Chek is ignorant and has made an ignorant, illogical, and just plain stupid comment. I don't think he lies...but I sure wouldn't put it past him.

Chek old buddy....you DO know that the Boeing 767-200 was only a twinkle in some engineer's eye when the TT were built...don't you???

So tell us again how an aircraft that didn't exist could have influenced building design in any way? Your answer to this question will be most entertaining.

-z

_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:
chek wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
chek wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
chek wrote:

And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.


That would be me then. And you have the evidence to back this claim up...where? You haven't shown us any evidence for this at all Chek. You wouldn't be being dishonest would you Chek? Show us the evidence for this claim. Show all those new to the site how it's the critics who make things up, and the enlightend truth seekers like yourself that have the facts on their side. Show them.


I should also have added:
"And then, lowest of the low, the purely dishonest types who tell bare faced lies such as the WTC Towers weren't designed to be hit by airliners full of fuel at 500mph, when of course they were. Easily.
There's only one reason I can see for such deception."

It's in NIST's report, oh lying shill.
Go look for it, through all four feet thick of it.
It's in there.
That's your first punishment.
I'll leave it to whatever conscience you might have for the rest.


You can't tell me where it is? Are you sure it exists? Or are you lying? Post the evidence. It's your claim, you prove it.


On the contrary you lying shill, it's your lie,you prove it.
Of course, you can't prove a lie.
So get reading shill.
It should keep you out of trouble a long, long time while you ponder the error of your ways and what your life had become.

No matter how 'important' those you cover for are, remember, it's your soul. Nobody else has responsibility for it.
Just you.
And when you find it, you can come back here and apologise to everyone.
You've got a lot of reading ahead.
Get going.


Erm no, you are the one that claims the buildings could withstand 500mph impacts, so you show me why you think that. Unless it's the extract I posted above, in which case there is no evidence for it.


JP,

You have overheated Chek's CT core!! Meltdown is imminent!!

Gawd but these guys are stupid!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

nevermind.
-z

_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jay Ref wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
Is this what you were talking about?

Quote:
Buildings are not designed to withstand the impact of
fuel-laden commercial airliners. However, Port
Authority documents indicate that the impact of a
Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph and possibly crashing
into the 80th floor had been analyzed during the
design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964.
While NIST has not found evidence of the analysis, the
documents state that such a collision would result in
localized damage only, and that it would not cause
collapse or substantial damage to the WTC towers.
The effect of fires due to jet fuel dispersion and ignition
of building contents was not considered in the
1964 analysis
. Loss of life in the immediate area of
aircraft impact was anticipated, but loss of life from fire
and smoke was not considered.


So, no evidence for that claim.


Chek is ignorant and has made an ignorant, illogical, and just plain stupid comment. I don't think he lies...but I sure wouldn't put it past him.

Chek old buddy....you DO know that the Boeing 767-200 was only a twinkle in some engineer's eye when the TT were built...don't you???

So tell us again how an aircraft that didn't exist could have influenced building design in any way? Your answer to this question will be most entertaining.

-z


Jay ref you old fraudster, are you suggesting that a B707 is somehow unique?
That somehow separate calculations should have been performed for every possible brand of aircraft such as a DC-8, or any comparable aircraft in terms of size, weight and performance- such as a 767?
You really are a troll aren't you?

Now let Pixels get on with his homework.
He seems to have found part one, now let him do the rest on his own.
It might help make a fully functional human being of him.
Personally I doubt it, but you never know,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chek wrote:
Jay Ref wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
Is this what you were talking about?

Quote:
Buildings are not designed to withstand the impact of
fuel-laden commercial airliners. However, Port
Authority documents indicate that the impact of a
Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph and possibly crashing
into the 80th floor had been analyzed during the
design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964.
While NIST has not found evidence of the analysis, the
documents state that such a collision would result in
localized damage only, and that it would not cause
collapse or substantial damage to the WTC towers.
The effect of fires due to jet fuel dispersion and ignition
of building contents was not considered in the
1964 analysis
. Loss of life in the immediate area of
aircraft impact was anticipated, but loss of life from fire
and smoke was not considered.


So, no evidence for that claim.


Chek is ignorant and has made an ignorant, illogical, and just plain stupid comment. I don't think he lies...but I sure wouldn't put it past him.

Chek old buddy....you DO know that the Boeing 767-200 was only a twinkle in some engineer's eye when the TT were built...don't you???

So tell us again how an aircraft that didn't exist could have influenced building design in any way? Your answer to this question will be most entertaining.

-z


Jay ref you old fraudster, are you suggesting that a B707 is somehow unique?
That somehow separate calculations should have been performed for every possible brand of aircraft such as a DC-8, or any comparable aircraft in terms of size, weight and performance- such as a 767?
You really are a troll aren't you?

Now let Pixels get on with his homework.
He seems to have found part one, now let him do the rest on his own.
It might help make a fully functional human being of him.
Personally I doubt it, but you never know,


Well I can't find it, so it doesn't exist. You are proved wrong. The towers couldn't withstand the impact. You are a liar.

_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blimey chek you really have lost it today.

I've always thought that there are multiple people posting under your account. The tone, the language, the logic(?) etc, tend to vary a lot from day to day or even hour to hour.

Is this just *one* of the cheks going doolally?

_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:
chek wrote:
Jay Ref wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
Is this what you were talking about?

Quote:
Buildings are not designed to withstand the impact of
fuel-laden commercial airliners. However, Port
Authority documents indicate that the impact of a
Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph and possibly crashing
into the 80th floor had been analyzed during the
design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964.
While NIST has not found evidence of the analysis, the
documents state that such a collision would result in
localized damage only, and that it would not cause
collapse or substantial damage to the WTC towers.
The effect of fires due to jet fuel dispersion and ignition
of building contents was not considered in the
1964 analysis
. Loss of life in the immediate area of
aircraft impact was anticipated, but loss of life from fire
and smoke was not considered.


So, no evidence for that claim.


Chek is ignorant and has made an ignorant, illogical, and just plain stupid comment. I don't think he lies...but I sure wouldn't put it past him.

Chek old buddy....you DO know that the Boeing 767-200 was only a twinkle in some engineer's eye when the TT were built...don't you???

So tell us again how an aircraft that didn't exist could have influenced building design in any way? Your answer to this question will be most entertaining.

-z


Jay ref you old fraudster, are you suggesting that a B707 is somehow unique?
That somehow separate calculations should have been performed for every possible brand of aircraft such as a DC-8, or any comparable aircraft in terms of size, weight and performance- such as a 767?
You really are a troll aren't you?

Now let Pixels get on with his homework.
He seems to have found part one, now let him do the rest on his own.
It might help make a fully functional human being of him.
Personally I doubt it, but you never know,


Well I can't find it, so it doesn't exist. You are proved wrong. The towers couldn't withstand the impact. You are a liar.


What a lot of effort. Still, it's your soul shill.
You've had as much help as I'm giving you.
As I said before, the next time you hear from me will be to expose any further of your lies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group