| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Come on Long Tooth, you have still failed to show us where Atta's passport flying through the building and landing multiple blocks away is part of the "official story" Surely you must be able to do that, you keep on mentioning it!
Here is another challenge you will fail, show us Bush linking 9/11 to Iraq. |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq32 7.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html
In the days immediately following the attacks, President George W Bush confided to colleagues that he believed that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks. "He probably was behind this in the end," he said.
Until now, most of the evidence presented by Washington to prove the link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda has been inconclusive. In the weeks immediately after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration was keen to draw attention to a report issued by the Czech Republic's interior ministry claiming that Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague earlier that year.
This discovery backs up everything we have heard about Baghdad's dealings with bin Laden," a Western intelligence official said last night. "It shows that Iraqi intelligence was desperate to form an alliance with al-Qa'eda. And if Saddam was working with bin Laden from the mid-1990s, that raises the question of whether he was involved in the 9/11 attacks."
okay, shall we go back to what i actually said, before you decided to invent what i said
I said linking 9/11 to start wars,
you replied, linking 9/11 to iraq.
i said linking 9/11 to afghanistan.
now are you going to answer my original question? or are you going to answer a question i didant ask again?
As you have stated, you believe Bush is a crazy warmongerer, so do you think a crazy warmongerer would lie about 9/11 to start wars?
would a crazy warmongerer lie about 9/11 to start a war with afghanistan?
you seem to have selective memory syndrome when it comes to bush attempting to link iraq with 9/11 prior/during the war with iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
............maybe you could answer this post bushwacker seeing as though you hold all the logic.
................im only intrested in explainations for the numerous flashes on the intact walls NOT in the smoke. if you cannot give a logical and believable example then there is reason to question the offical version or at least ask questions.
..........i look forward to your explaination for the flashes that look the same as flashes in a CD.
|
But it seems you do not want explanations that are anything other than it being controlled demolition! You get upset and say that is "making things up" |
what rubbish you talk, although i suppose it allows your to ignore what i was saying in my last post.
you made it clear you do not know yourself, you also think it is more logical to make-up reasons which should be accepted as truth rather than just have an ivestigastion to actually find out.
and you make things up whilst mocking truthers and accusing them of doing the same.
so tell me bushwacker, should i take the things you make up as an excuse for the evidence as truth? |
What is the point of asking for another investigation when you have nothing to cast doubt on any previous investigation?
In any case you would not accept a result that did not say it was an inside job, you would just expand the conspiracy to cover the new investigators. "Truthseekers" are not interested in truth, that has become very clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | Come on Long Tooth, you have still failed to show us where Atta's passport flying through the building and landing multiple blocks away is part of the "official story" Surely you must be able to do that, you keep on mentioning it!
Here is another challenge you will fail, show us Bush linking 9/11 to Iraq. |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq32 7.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html
In the days immediately following the attacks, President George W Bush confided to colleagues that he believed that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks. "He probably was behind this in the end," he said.
Until now, most of the evidence presented by Washington to prove the link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda has been inconclusive. In the weeks immediately after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration was keen to draw attention to a report issued by the Czech Republic's interior ministry claiming that Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague earlier that year.
This discovery backs up everything we have heard about Baghdad's dealings with bin Laden," a Western intelligence official said last night. "It shows that Iraqi intelligence was desperate to form an alliance with al-Qa'eda. And if Saddam was working with bin Laden from the mid-1990s, that raises the question of whether he was involved in the 9/11 attacks."
okay, shall we go back to what i actually said, before you decided to invent what i said
I said linking 9/11 to start wars,
you replied, linking 9/11 to iraq.
i said linking 9/11 to afghanistan.
now are you going to answer my original question? or are you going to answer a question i didant ask again?
As you have stated, you believe Bush is a crazy warmongerer, so do you think a crazy warmongerer would lie about 9/11 to start wars?
would a crazy warmongerer lie about 9/11 to start a war with afghanistan?
you seem to have selective memory syndrome when it comes to bush attempting to link iraq with 9/11 prior/during the war with iraq. |
Still unable to find out anything about Atta's passport, then?
That is a pretty half-hearted link you found! Nothing but an unsubstantiated anonymous report that he said to some people "He probably was behind this in the end" He did not give that as a reason to attack Iraq, did he?
Have a look at this
"US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks."
How many times do I have to point out that a crazy warmonger does not have to lie to start a war if he is attacked? Bush attacked Afghanistan for refusing to hand over bin Laden, he attacked Iraq over WMD, not 9/11.
Had Bush wanted a excuse to attack Iraq, and had arranged 9/11, he would have made the hijackers Iraqis, not Saudis, a point you like all troofers, prefer to ignore, since you cannot explain it.
As of course you ignored my previous posting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
............maybe you could answer this post bushwacker seeing as though you hold all the logic.
................im only intrested in explainations for the numerous flashes on the intact walls NOT in the smoke. if you cannot give a logical and believable example then there is reason to question the offical version or at least ask questions.
..........i look forward to your explaination for the flashes that look the same as flashes in a CD.
|
But it seems you do not want explanations that are anything other than it being controlled demolition! You get upset and say that is "making things up" |
what rubbish you talk, although i suppose it allows your to ignore what i was saying in my last post.
you made it clear you do not know yourself, you also think it is more logical to make-up reasons which should be accepted as truth rather than just have an ivestigastion to actually find out.
and you make things up whilst mocking truthers and accusing them of doing the same.
so tell me bushwacker, should i take the things you make up as an excuse for the evidence as truth? |
What is the point of asking for another investigation when you have nothing to cast doubt on any previous investigation?
In any case you would not accept a result that did not say it was an inside job, you would just expand the conspiracy to cover the new investigators. "Truthseekers" are not interested in truth, that has become very clear. |
so you do think i should listen to your made-up excuses regarding the many UNANSWERED question regarding 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
............maybe you could answer this post bushwacker seeing as though you hold all the logic.
................im only intrested in explainations for the numerous flashes on the intact walls NOT in the smoke. if you cannot give a logical and believable example then there is reason to question the offical version or at least ask questions.
..........i look forward to your explaination for the flashes that look the same as flashes in a CD.
|
But it seems you do not want explanations that are anything other than it being controlled demolition! You get upset and say that is "making things up" |
what rubbish you talk, although i suppose it allows your to ignore what i was saying in my last post.
you made it clear you do not know yourself, you also think it is more logical to make-up reasons which should be accepted as truth rather than just have an ivestigastion to actually find out.
and you make things up whilst mocking truthers and accusing them of doing the same.
so tell me bushwacker, should i take the things you make up as an excuse for the evidence as truth? |
What is the point of asking for another investigation when you have nothing to cast doubt on any previous investigation?
In any case you would not accept a result that did not say it was an inside job, you would just expand the conspiracy to cover the new investigators. "Truthseekers" are not interested in truth, that has become very clear. |
so you do think i should listen to your made-up excuses regarding the many UNANSWERED question regarding 9/11. |
I think you should apply the same critical analysis to evidence used to support conspiracy theories as you do to the "official" theory. For instance, as I said before, if those flashes are flashes of controlled demolition charges going off, how can they bring about a perfectly symmetrical collapse when they are at random all over the building? And why are there none before the towers start to collapse?
Have you any made-up excuses for these UNANSWERED questions regarding the CD theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
............maybe you could answer this post bushwacker seeing as though you hold all the logic.
................im only intrested in explainations for the numerous flashes on the intact walls NOT in the smoke. if you cannot give a logical and believable example then there is reason to question the offical version or at least ask questions.
..........i look forward to your explaination for the flashes that look the same as flashes in a CD.
|
But it seems you do not want explanations that are anything other than it being controlled demolition! You get upset and say that is "making things up" |
what rubbish you talk, although i suppose it allows your to ignore what i was saying in my last post.
you made it clear you do not know yourself, you also think it is more logical to make-up reasons which should be accepted as truth rather than just have an ivestigastion to actually find out.
and you make things up whilst mocking truthers and accusing them of doing the same.
so tell me bushwacker, should i take the things you make up as an excuse for the evidence as truth? |
What is the point of asking for another investigation when you have nothing to cast doubt on any previous investigation?
In any case you would not accept a result that did not say it was an inside job, you would just expand the conspiracy to cover the new investigators. "Truthseekers" are not interested in truth, that has become very clear. |
so you do think i should listen to your made-up excuses regarding the many UNANSWERED question regarding 9/11. |
I think you should apply the same critical analysis to evidence used to support conspiracy theories as you do to the "official" theory. For instance, as I said before, if those flashes are flashes of controlled demolition charges going off, how can they bring about a perfectly symmetrical collapse when they are at random all over the building? And why are there none before the towers start to collapse?
Have you any made-up excuses for these UNANSWERED questions regarding the CD theory? |
no thats why i think there should be an investigastion to answer the unanswered questions. you however think you should beable to make anything up and that should answer those unanswered questions, but it dos'nt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker,
thats excatly the same sort of reply when you asked for proof of the usa funding the mujahadeen/qaedas, the fact that the report came from army commaders at the base, you dimissed it as unreliable.
I chose that article because its one of the mainstream media sources peddling the official theories, and where you turn for your reliable sources when regurgating the official conspiracy theoery, funny how it suddenly becomes unreliable to you now. Perhaps you would like to sue the telegraph for lies and lible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | Bushwacker,
thats excatly the same sort of reply when you asked for proof of the usa funding the mujahadeen/qaedas, the fact that the report came from army commaders at the base, you dimissed it as unreliable.
I chose that article because its one of the mainstream media sources peddling the official theories, and where you turn for your reliable sources when regurgating the official conspiracy theoery, funny how it suddenly becomes unreliable to you now. Perhaps you would like to sue the telegraph for lies and lible? |
You are missing the point, Bush may have said to his inner circle that he thought Saddam was behind 9/11 in the end, but he did not use that as an excuse to attack Iraq, did he? A simple yes or no will do.
No answer to the points? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker,
while we are on GW's pathological lying to start wars, perhaps you'd like to spin yourself out of these ones too.
http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp
The Bush administration's
Top 40 Lies
about war and terrorism
Bring 'em On! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, I do not think I shall let you change the subject until you come up with some answers to earlier questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | Bushwacker,
thats excatly the same sort of reply when you asked for proof of the usa funding the mujahadeen/qaedas, the fact that the report came from army commaders at the base, you dimissed it as unreliable.
I chose that article because its one of the mainstream media sources peddling the official theories, and where you turn for your reliable sources when regurgating the official conspiracy theoery, funny how it suddenly becomes unreliable to you now. Perhaps you would like to sue the telegraph for lies and lible? |
You are missing the point, Bush may have said to his inner circle that he thought Saddam was behind 9/11 in the end, but he did not use that as an excuse to attack Iraq, did he? A simple yes or no will do.
No answer to the points? |
may i enquire what sources you will accept? perhaps you would like to list them?
everytime you ask for a link and i provide one you say its unreliable, even when you accept the same source in times past.
give me the web links which qualify as reputable to you.
you request yes and no answers now only? even though you do not do so yourself when asked. 
provide me with links you accept as reputable and acceptable to you, and i will provide what you need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | Bushwacker,
thats excatly the same sort of reply when you asked for proof of the usa funding the mujahadeen/qaedas, the fact that the report came from army commaders at the base, you dimissed it as unreliable.
I chose that article because its one of the mainstream media sources peddling the official theories, and where you turn for your reliable sources when regurgating the official conspiracy theoery, funny how it suddenly becomes unreliable to you now. Perhaps you would like to sue the telegraph for lies and lible? |
You are missing the point, Bush may have said to his inner circle that he thought Saddam was behind 9/11 in the end, but he did not use that as an excuse to attack Iraq, did he? A simple yes or no will do.
No answer to the points? |
may i enquire what sources you will accept? perhaps you would like to list them?
everytime you ask for a link and i provide one you say its unreliable, even when you accept the same source in times past.
give me the web links which qualify as reputable to you.
you request yes and no answers now only? even though you do not do so yourself when asked.
provide me with links you accept as reputable and acceptable to you, and i will provide what you need. |
There is nothing wrong with your Telegraph link, it is just irrelevant because Bush did not use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq. Is there something about that you cannot understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
No, I do not think I shall let you change the subject until you come up with some answers to earlier questions. |
If you hadant changed the subject we wouldant have got to this point in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Here is another challenge you will fail, show us Bush linking 9/11 to Iraq. |
Have you read Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" Bushy ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
heres a link between saddam and 9/11.
according to this article from 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.
The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.
President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.
more....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
so there is no proven link between sept attacks and iraq, but that did'nt stop bush suggesting one, it was just one of those things they do these days, whats it called eeerrmmm oh yeah thats it , a lie.
we must allow bush to defend the comments you decide if hes lieing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSunCsrkLTw
and cheney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k
more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnPb7un8Rh4
also...
WASHINGTON - Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.
In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were ``apparently quite good.'' Terrorists-to-be were encouraged to ``think creatively about ways to commit mass murder,'' it added.
Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a ``collaborative relationship.''
The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.
more.....
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm
also...
Important new information has come from Edward Jay Epstein about Mohammed Atta’s contacts with Iraqi intelligence. The Czechs have long maintained that Atta, leader of the 9/11 hijackers in the United States, met with Ahmed al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence official, posted to the Iraqi embassy in Prague. As Epstein now reports, Czech authorities have discovered that al-Ani’s appointment calendar shows a scheduled meeting on April 8, 2001 with a "Hamburg student."
That is exactly what the Czechs had been saying since shortly after 9/11: Atta, a long-time student at Germany’s Hamburg-Harburg Technical University, met with al-Ani on April 8, 2001. Indeed, when Atta earlier applied for a visa to visit the Czech Republic, he identified himself as a “Hamburg student.” The discovery of the notation in al-Ani’s appointment calendar about a meeting with a “Hamburg student” provides critical corroboration of the Czech claim.
Epstein also explains how Atta could have traveled to Prague at that time without the Czechs having a record of such a trip. Spanish intelligence has found evidence that two Algerians provided Atta a false passport.
more....
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13323
also....
WASHINGTON -- Struggling to stem growing opposition to his Iraq policy even among Republicans, President Bush contended anew Tuesday that the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States are the same as al-Qaida in Iraq, a violent insurgent group that didn't exist until after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
It was the second time in two weeks that Bush has made the link in an apparent attempt to transform lingering fear of another terrorist attack in the United States into backing for the buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq.
"Al-Qaida is doing most of the spectacular bombings, trying to incite sectarian violence," Bush told a business group in Cleveland, Ohio. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims."
more....
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/266778.html
also....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMe08e2wMZk
ooops no hes a conspiracy theorists.
so decide for your selves, there is certainly a lot of confusion over it, its mainly media sources that say he suggested links as oppose to actually hearing or seeing qoutes of bush saying it, so the lie was sold to us via the media, not through bush this time, unless someone can point out anything ive missed.
so for now i take back the comment bush lied although the media along with a few other people certainly did and helped to paint a picture to persaude the public to think it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/07/18/brazil.plane.crash/in dex.html
Yet another example - a plane crashes into a building. Fires reach 1,000 degrees centigrade. But how? Jet fuel doesn't burn that hot except under controlled conditions, so troofer logic says this must have been a conspiracy!
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/07/18/brazil.plane.crash/in dex.html
Yet another example - a plane crashes into a building. Fires reach 1,000 degrees centigrade. But how? Jet fuel doesn't burn that hot except under controlled conditions, so troofer logic says this must have been a conspiracy! |
which troofer said it was a conspiracy? i certainly don't think its a conspiracy, and i see no reason to doubt the offical story of what happened, although its early days and i don't know all the details surrounding the crash, but even still nothing strange here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
You missed the point.
This thread is about things troofers seem unable to understand - things that sound like explosions may not be bombs. Ordinary fires can burn very hot.
The plane crash is the latest example, with 1,000 degree fires created without thermate or other mysterious explanations required.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | things that sound like explosions may not be bombs. |
Or contrariwise - just how many things that sounds like explosions (and in fact are described by witnesses as explosions with force) would you expect from a fire 80 stories high? What are the chances that none of them are caused by bombs?
Or furthermore, why don't I go and do something productive instead of joining this thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Here is another challenge you will fail, show us Bush linking 9/11 to Iraq. |
Have you read Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" Bushy ? |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | Mark Gobell wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Here is another challenge you will fail, show us Bush linking 9/11 to Iraq. |
Have you read Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" Bushy ? |
|
No |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | You missed the point.
This thread is about things troofers seem unable to understand - things that sound like explosions may not be bombs. Ordinary fires can burn very hot.
The plane crash is the latest example, with 1,000 degree fires created without thermate or other mysterious explanations required. |
fancy that, honest truthful firefighters mistaking and not understanding things that sound like explosions for bombs. You really cannot trust these firefighters these days, what with fighting fires for decades and all their experience. Yep i'll agree with you pepik, i'll just ignore those honest brave, truthseeking firefighters with all their combined experience of firefighting, and take your making it up as i go along side.
How can all bodies 'disappear' in the pentagon crash, yet bodies remain at the latest crash?
Let me see if i am getting this, the official story says a plane crashed into the pentagon, and all bodies burned to ashes?  yet the brazilian plane crashed into a fuel depot and bodies remained 'intact'? black box hunt anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | pepik wrote: | You missed the point.
This thread is about things troofers seem unable to understand - things that sound like explosions may not be bombs. Ordinary fires can burn very hot.
The plane crash is the latest example, with 1,000 degree fires created without thermate or other mysterious explanations required. |
fancy that, honest truthful firefighters mistaking and not understanding things that sound like explosions for bombs. You really cannot trust these firefighters these days, what with fighting fires for decades and all their experience. Yep i'll agree with you pepik, i'll just ignore those honest brave, truthseeking firefighters with all their combined experience of firefighting, and take your making it up as i go along side.
How can all bodies 'disappear' in the pentagon crash, yet bodies remain at the latest crash?
Let me see if i am getting this, the official story says a plane crashed into the pentagon, and all bodies burned to ashes? yet the brazilian plane crashed into a fuel depot and bodies remained 'intact'? black box hunt anyone? |
No, you are not getting it. Sufficient of the bodies remained at the Pentagon for almost all to be identified by DNA, as detailed here.
And there is no reason to suppose NY firefighters would have any experience of bombs going off, however many decades they had been fighting fires, is there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | pepik wrote: | You missed the point.
This thread is about things troofers seem unable to understand - things that sound like explosions may not be bombs. Ordinary fires can burn very hot.
The plane crash is the latest example, with 1,000 degree fires created without thermate or other mysterious explanations required. |
fancy that, honest truthful firefighters mistaking and not understanding things that sound like explosions for bombs. You really cannot trust these firefighters these days, what with fighting fires for decades and all their experience. Yep i'll agree with you pepik, i'll just ignore those honest brave, truthseeking firefighters with all their combined experience of firefighting, and take your making it up as i go along side.
How can all bodies 'disappear' in the pentagon crash, yet bodies remain at the latest crash?
Let me see if i am getting this, the official story says a plane crashed into the pentagon, and all bodies burned to ashes? yet the brazilian plane crashed into a fuel depot and bodies remained 'intact'? black box hunt anyone? |
No, you are not getting it. Sufficient of the bodies remained at the Pentagon for almost all to be identified by DNA, as detailed here.
And there is no reason to suppose NY firefighters would have any experience of bombs going off, however many decades they had been fighting fires, is there? |
Body parts, ah yes.
yes fancy firefighters seeking truth, not recognising various explosions.
firefighters who hear many explosions over decades. fancy them saying it sounded like a controlled demolition, boom boom boom they say.
firefighters would recognise a controlled demo wouldant they? boom boom boom they said, explosions going off on floors, just like a CD, and you call them mistaken? LOL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | pepik wrote: | You missed the point.
This thread is about things troofers seem unable to understand - things that sound like explosions may not be bombs. Ordinary fires can burn very hot.
The plane crash is the latest example, with 1,000 degree fires created without thermate or other mysterious explanations required. |
fancy that, honest truthful firefighters mistaking and not understanding things that sound like explosions for bombs. You really cannot trust these firefighters these days, what with fighting fires for decades and all their experience. Yep i'll agree with you pepik, i'll just ignore those honest brave, truthseeking firefighters with all their combined experience of firefighting, and take your making it up as i go along side.
How can all bodies 'disappear' in the pentagon crash, yet bodies remain at the latest crash?
Let me see if i am getting this, the official story says a plane crashed into the pentagon, and all bodies burned to ashes? yet the brazilian plane crashed into a fuel depot and bodies remained 'intact'? black box hunt anyone? |
No, you are not getting it. Sufficient of the bodies remained at the Pentagon for almost all to be identified by DNA, as detailed here.
And there is no reason to suppose NY firefighters would have any experience of bombs going off, however many decades they had been fighting fires, is there? |
Body parts, ah yes.
yes fancy firefighters seeking truth, not recognising various explosions.
firefighters who hear many explosions over decades. fancy them saying it sounded like a controlled demolition, boom boom boom they say.
firefighters would recognise a controlled demo wouldant they? boom boom boom they said, explosions going off on floors, just like a CD, and you call them mistaken? LOL. |
I suppose you are quite unable to understand that saying something is like something else is quite different to saying that is something else? I thought so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | i'll just ignore those honest brave, truthseeking firefighters with all their combined experience of firefighting |
That's what you've been doing all along isn't it? Or now you listen to them when they say WTC7 looked like it was going to collapse?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | i'll just ignore those honest brave, truthseeking firefighters with all their combined experience of firefighting |
That's what you've been doing all along isn't it? Or now you listen to them when they say WTC7 looked like it was going to collapse? |
make your mind up pepy, I thought you liked smearing truthers, so why leap to the defense of the firemen truthers now, when ridiculing them earlier? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please point out where I ridiculed firemen truthers. Oh wait, that was just one of those things you make up to help you along in the quest for troof, right?
Why don't you start a "Liars for Troof" club?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | pepik wrote: | You missed the point.
This thread is about things troofers seem unable to understand - things that sound like explosions may not be bombs. Ordinary fires can burn very hot.
The plane crash is the latest example, with 1,000 degree fires created without thermate or other mysterious explanations required. |
fancy that, honest truthful firefighters mistaking and not understanding things that sound like explosions for bombs. You really cannot trust these firefighters these days, what with fighting fires for decades and all their experience. Yep i'll agree with you pepik, i'll just ignore those honest brave, truthseeking firefighters with all their combined experience of firefighting, and take your making it up as i go along side.
How can all bodies 'disappear' in the pentagon crash, yet bodies remain at the latest crash?
Let me see if i am getting this, the official story says a plane crashed into the pentagon, and all bodies burned to ashes? yet the brazilian plane crashed into a fuel depot and bodies remained 'intact'? black box hunt anyone? |
No, you are not getting it. Sufficient of the bodies remained at the Pentagon for almost all to be identified by DNA, as detailed here.
And there is no reason to suppose NY firefighters would have any experience of bombs going off, however many decades they had been fighting fires, is there? |
Body parts, ah yes.
yes fancy firefighters seeking truth, not recognising various explosions.
firefighters who hear many explosions over decades. fancy them saying it sounded like a controlled demolition, boom boom boom they say.
firefighters would recognise a controlled demo wouldant they? boom boom boom they said, explosions going off on floors, just like a CD, and you call them mistaken? LOL. |
I suppose you are quite unable to understand that saying something is like something else is quite different to saying that is something else? I thought so. |
yep, shall we disregard the firefighters or accept their descriptions? i suppose we shall have to disregard all eyewitness testimonies in courts of law, when eyewitness' say, it sounded like, when answering questions.
so when someone says it sounded like a CD, and it later turns out to be CD, we just disregard their testimony because they state it sounded like CD. I wonder why they didant say the explosions were the pancaking of the floors? or the explosions of paper heating (paper heating, thats one of your previous smoke and mirrors explanations,LOL). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | Please point out where I ridiculed firemen truthers. Oh wait, that was just one of those things you make up to help you along in the quest for troof, right?
Why don't you start a "Liars for Troof" club? |
you ridicule truthers all the time, you have never stated all truthers except firemen truthers have you?
Are firemen truthers excempt in your smearing of truthers then?
i have no interest in starting a liars for troof club, you already have one of your own, and your numbers are swelled to two, you and bushwacker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
