| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | why cant people just leave the mountains of anomalous evidence that contradicts bush's conspiracy of what happened on 9/11. |
Because we are not prepared to accept your word for it that there are such mountains of evidence, and just as well, because when we look at them we find that in fact there is no actual evidence at all, just pretend evidence, put together by people who call themselves "truthseekers" and believe that gives them the right to manipulate evidence in an attempt to support their preconceived views. |
You mean the put options investigators who were told to stop investigating are truth seekers? and they were making it up when the trail led too close to home? why would they manipulate that?
you mean the people at the saudi embassy who report numerous alleged bombers have turned up alive and well are truthseekers and not to be trusted too?
And all the victims famillies calling for an independant enquiry for the truth are not to be trusted?
And all those proffesionals and pilots and firefighters are manipulating anomoulous evidence? why would they do that?
you think the alleged pilot who couldant fly a cessna actually performed like a super pilot that day? why would pilots say this? what is so wrong with searching for truth? why are you so adverse to people seeking truth? does that mean you are not seeking the truth so you are honest? you sure have a distorted logic when analysing things.
you have nicely ignored the question about the crazy war mongering bush would lie about his conspiracy regarding 9/11, i think nobody noticed you have dodged the question, well maybe i noticed but nobody else.
Fancy that, all that pretend evidence such as put options investigations being blocked, but the real evidence of atta's magic passport turning up is readily digested and swallowed.  |
Yes, you see you have just swallowed a whole collection of misinformation the "truthseekers" have fed you, investigate it a little more, apply some critical thinking, and you might become better informed.
The put options have been investigated here
No hijackers have turned up alive, the BBC long ago acknowledged their mistake link. Further evidence here
Hanjour held a commercial pilot's licence, the criticism of any of the hijacker pilots' flying concerned their landings, which they were unconcerned about, and the manoevures were not in fact difficult, novices being able to reproduce them on simulators quite easily.
The victims families may be calling for further investigation, and good luck to them, but are NOT alleging an inside job.
I am all in favour of people seeking truth, but not manipulating evidence, distorting facts and lying in pursuit of pre-conceived theories. It is very noticable that "truthseekers" apply very different standards to the "official theory" and their own ideas.
Crazy war-mongering Bush does not lie all the time, and demonstrated by his pathetic response to the news of the NY attacks that he had no foreknowledge.
I'll let you investigate Atta's passport for yourself, you may be surprised!
I fully expect you to ignore all this, and carry on posting your favourite fairy tales regardless. Members of a cult are not easy to dissuade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM&mode=related&search=
here are even more flashes, on the walls while its still intact, then you get flashes followed by pulverisation, just like a controlled demolition.
they are OBVIOUS! what caused the flashes? don't give me nonsense about steel colliding and sparking, the flashes happen on the walls intact as well as in the smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ |
maybe you could answer this post bushwacker seeing as though you hold all the logic.
watch the full video clip(lasts about 4 mins) you will see flashes on the walls before they have even started to collapse, im looking for the most logical explaination for them. now i have thought it through and so far can only find a simular examples in a known CD(hence the bottom link), and cannot think of any reason why the flashes should be there in a natural collapse.
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.
there is numerous footage showing these flashes even in mainstream news footage. do you think 9/11 truthers made all this up to?
i look forward to your explaination for the flashes that look the same as flashes in a CD.
one link is broken so here they are again with anothers showing other examples of flashes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM&mode=related&search=
link: for flashes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
link: of known CD.
more examples of flashes below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NdEdjhevcU |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | why cant people just leave the mountains of anomalous evidence that contradicts bush's conspiracy of what happened on 9/11. |
Because we are not prepared to accept your word for it that there are such mountains of evidence, and just as well, because when we look at them we find that in fact there is no actual evidence at all, just pretend evidence, put together by people who call themselves "truthseekers" and believe that gives them the right to manipulate evidence in an attempt to support their preconceived views. |
You mean the put options investigators who were told to stop investigating are truth seekers? and they were making it up when the trail led too close to home? why would they manipulate that?
you mean the people at the saudi embassy who report numerous alleged bombers have turned up alive and well are truthseekers and not to be trusted too?
And all the victims famillies calling for an independant enquiry for the truth are not to be trusted?
And all those proffesionals and pilots and firefighters are manipulating anomoulous evidence? why would they do that?
you think the alleged pilot who couldant fly a cessna actually performed like a super pilot that day? why would pilots say this? what is so wrong with searching for truth? why are you so adverse to people seeking truth? does that mean you are not seeking the truth so you are honest? you sure have a distorted logic when analysing things.
you have nicely ignored the question about the crazy war mongering bush would lie about his conspiracy regarding 9/11, i think nobody noticed you have dodged the question, well maybe i noticed but nobody else.
Fancy that, all that pretend evidence such as put options investigations being blocked, but the real evidence of atta's magic passport turning up is readily digested and swallowed. |
Yes, you see you have just swallowed a whole collection of misinformation the "truthseekers" have fed you, investigate it a little more, apply some critical thinking, and you might become better informed.
The put options have been investigated here
No hijackers have turned up alive, the BBC long ago acknowledged their mistake link. Further evidence here
Hanjour held a commercial pilot's licence, the criticism of any of the hijacker pilots' flying concerned their landings, which they were unconcerned about, and the manoevures were not in fact difficult, novices being able to reproduce them on simulators quite easily.
The victims families may be calling for further investigation, and good luck to them, but are NOT alleging an inside job.
I am all in favour of people seeking truth, but not manipulating evidence, distorting facts and lying in pursuit of pre-conceived theories. It is very noticable that "truthseekers" apply very different standards to the "official theory" and their own ideas.
Crazy war-mongering Bush does not lie all the time, and demonstrated by his pathetic response to the news of the NY attacks that he had no foreknowledge.
I'll let you investigate Atta's passport for yourself, you may be surprised!
I fully expect you to ignore all this, and carry on posting your favourite fairy tales regardless. Members of a cult are not easy to dissuade. |
So you acknowledge that the man of truth and peace is a crazy warmongering man. But stand firm bush would not lie about 9/11, even though he has used 9/11as an excuse to attack iraq and afghanistan.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counter terrorism, entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/illegaltrades.html
hmmm the worlds largest insider trading scam. Unprecedented insider trading in the days leading to 9/11, 1200% on some days, money stillunclaimed, and investigators closing in are told to back off,
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Myth-Reality-Griffin30mar06.h tm
so you admit you believe bush is a crazy warmongerer, but is incapable of lying regarding what really happened on 9/11. dont crazy warmongerers, lie, manipulate, stage events in their bloodlust for war? hello, iraq, afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: |
No, you never said that, but you do not much like like saying anything definite, you seem to prefer to operate by snide comments. |
You say that as though I should care about what some random person on the other side of the internets thinks of my posting style.  I just pop in here occasionally to have fun with you uptight bunch...
| Quote: | | I have shown you research showing the temperatures reached in an ordinary office fire, but you like to ignore that for further snide comments about stacking up the office contents. |
And I've pointed out how that's about as relevant as a twig in a California wildfire.
| Quote: | | I suppose you find it helps you protect your beliefs to avoid facing facts. Bye now. |
Damn straight. I should start a major world religion! Or maybe just buy into the obviously utter load that the official 9/11 version is... same difference.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM&mode=related&search=
here are even more flashes, on the walls while its still intact, then you get flashes followed by pulverisation, just like a controlled demolition.
they are OBVIOUS! what caused the flashes? don't give me nonsense about steel colliding and sparking, the flashes happen on the walls intact as well as in the smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ |
maybe you could answer this post bushwacker seeing as though you hold all the logic.
watch the full video clip(lasts about 4 mins) you will see flashes on the walls before they have even started to collapse, im looking for the most logical explaination for them. now i have thought it through and so far can only find a simular examples in a known CD(hence the bottom link), and cannot think of any reason why the flashes should be there in a natural collapse.
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.
there is numerous footage showing these flashes even in mainstream news footage. do you think 9/11 truthers made all this up to?
i look forward to your explaination for the flashes that look the same as flashes in a CD.
one link is broken so here they are again with anothers showing other examples of flashes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM&mode=related&search=
link: for flashes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
link: of known CD.
more examples of flashes below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NdEdjhevcU |
But these are nothing like the flashes of a controlled demolition!
In a CD you get long lines of flashes, as a charges go off together, then seconds later, another line goes off in sequence, and the collapse is symmetrical. Again and again you troofers say the WTC collapses are symmetrical, pointing to CD. But these flashes are absolutely random, all over the towers. If they were demolition charges, the collapse would NOT be symmetrical. Also, no collapse follows these flashes.
Secondly, are they flashes? All we can see is lighter areas on the video. The earlier ones seem to be similar to the puffs of smoke that are either demolition squibs, according to troofers, or collapsing floors causing over-pressure to blow out through windows or vents, according to Implosion World. Then they seem to continue, through the smoke even after the demolition wave has passed, what can explain that? If they come from the remains of the upper stories, still crushing down on the lower floors, they might again be caused by collapsing floors, from the bottom up. They cannot be CD explosions because the upperfloors are falling at that point. They might just be video artifacts of some sort, I really do not know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM&mode=related&search=
here are even more flashes, on the walls while its still intact, then you get flashes followed by pulverisation, just like a controlled demolition.
they are OBVIOUS! what caused the flashes? don't give me nonsense about steel colliding and sparking, the flashes happen on the walls intact as well as in the smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ |
maybe you could answer this post bushwacker seeing as though you hold all the logic.
watch the full video clip(lasts about 4 mins) you will see flashes on the walls before they have even started to collapse, im looking for the most logical explaination for them. now i have thought it through and so far can only find a simular examples in a known CD(hence the bottom link), and cannot think of any reason why the flashes should be there in a natural collapse.
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.
there is numerous footage showing these flashes even in mainstream news footage. do you think 9/11 truthers made all this up to?
i look forward to your explaination for the flashes that look the same as flashes in a CD.
one link is broken so here they are again with anothers showing other examples of flashes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM&mode=related&search=
link: for flashes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
link: of known CD.
more examples of flashes below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NdEdjhevcU |
But these are nothing like the flashes of a controlled demolition!
In a CD you get long lines of flashes, as a charges go off together, then seconds later, another line goes off in sequence, and the collapse is symmetrical. Again and again you troofers say the WTC collapses are symmetrical, pointing to CD. But these flashes are absolutely random, all over the towers. If they were demolition charges, the collapse would NOT be symmetrical. Also, no collapse follows these flashes.
Secondly, are they flashes? All we can see is lighter areas on the video. The earlier ones seem to be similar to the puffs of smoke that are either demolition squibs, according to troofers, or collapsing floors causing over-pressure to blow out through windows or vents, according to Implosion World. Then they seem to continue, through the smoke even after the demolition wave has passed, what can explain that? If they come from the remains of the upper stories, still crushing down on the lower floors, they might again be caused by collapsing floors, from the bottom up. They cannot be CD explosions because the upperfloors are falling at that point. They might just be video artifacts of some sort, I really do not know. |
they might be video artifacts, 
they may also have been attas passport flying through the building, before landing convieniently multiple blocks away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | why cant people just leave the mountains of anomalous evidence that contradicts bush's conspiracy of what happened on 9/11. |
Because we are not prepared to accept your word for it that there are such mountains of evidence, and just as well, because when we look at them we find that in fact there is no actual evidence at all, just pretend evidence, put together by people who call themselves "truthseekers" and believe that gives them the right to manipulate evidence in an attempt to support their preconceived views. |
You mean the put options investigators who were told to stop investigating are truth seekers? and they were making it up when the trail led too close to home? why would they manipulate that?
you mean the people at the saudi embassy who report numerous alleged bombers have turned up alive and well are truthseekers and not to be trusted too?
And all the victims famillies calling for an independant enquiry for the truth are not to be trusted?
And all those proffesionals and pilots and firefighters are manipulating anomoulous evidence? why would they do that?
you think the alleged pilot who couldant fly a cessna actually performed like a super pilot that day? why would pilots say this? what is so wrong with searching for truth? why are you so adverse to people seeking truth? does that mean you are not seeking the truth so you are honest? you sure have a distorted logic when analysing things.
you have nicely ignored the question about the crazy war mongering bush would lie about his conspiracy regarding 9/11, i think nobody noticed you have dodged the question, well maybe i noticed but nobody else.
Fancy that, all that pretend evidence such as put options investigations being blocked, but the real evidence of atta's magic passport turning up is readily digested and swallowed. |
Yes, you see you have just swallowed a whole collection of misinformation the "truthseekers" have fed you, investigate it a little more, apply some critical thinking, and you might become better informed.
The put options have been investigated here
No hijackers have turned up alive, the BBC long ago acknowledged their mistake link. Further evidence here
Hanjour held a commercial pilot's licence, the criticism of any of the hijacker pilots' flying concerned their landings, which they were unconcerned about, and the manoevures were not in fact difficult, novices being able to reproduce them on simulators quite easily.
The victims families may be calling for further investigation, and good luck to them, but are NOT alleging an inside job.
I am all in favour of people seeking truth, but not manipulating evidence, distorting facts and lying in pursuit of pre-conceived theories. It is very noticable that "truthseekers" apply very different standards to the "official theory" and their own ideas.
Crazy war-mongering Bush does not lie all the time, and demonstrated by his pathetic response to the news of the NY attacks that he had no foreknowledge.
I'll let you investigate Atta's passport for yourself, you may be surprised!
I fully expect you to ignore all this, and carry on posting your favourite fairy tales regardless. Members of a cult are not easy to dissuade. |
So you acknowledge that the man of truth and peace is a crazy warmongering man. But stand firm bush would not lie about 9/11, even though he has used 9/11as an excuse to attack iraq and afghanistan.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counter terrorism, entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/illegaltrades.html
hmmm the worlds largest insider trading scam. Unprecedented insider trading in the days leading to 9/11, 1200% on some days, money stillunclaimed, and investigators closing in are told to back off,
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Myth-Reality-Griffin30mar06.h tm
so you admit you believe bush is a crazy warmongerer, but is incapable of lying regarding what really happened on 9/11. dont crazy warmongerers, lie, manipulate, stage events in their bloodlust for war? hello, iraq, afghanistan. |
I say again, crazy warmongers do not lie all the time, and being a crazy warmonger does not give you immunity from being attacked. After 9/11, the Bush administration wanted immediately to attack Iraq, but were restrained by the fact that there was no connection. If they had planned 9/11, they would surely have made the hijackers Iraqi, not Saudi.
Why would the US administration indulge in insider trading, and why not claim the proceeds? That makes no sense at all.
I see you ignore everything I posted, just as I predicted. You do not want to risk having your pet beliefs disrupted, do you?
Last edited by Bushwacker on Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker,
you must be blind not to see my answers.
video artifacts, keep em coming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: |
.........they may also have been attas passport flying through the building, before landing convieniently multiple blocks away. |
You still have done no research on that have you? You really are the perfect sucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: |
.........they may also have been attas passport flying through the building, before landing convieniently multiple blocks away. |
You still have done no research on that have you? You really are the perfect sucker. |
on the contrary, its you thats sucking on the teat of misinformation sites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TmcMistress wrote: |
........You say that as though I should care about what some random person on the other side of the internets thinks of my posting style. I just pop in here occasionally to have fun with you uptight bunch...
|
OK, you don't care what I think, I don't care what you think, no point in a dialogue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | Bushwacker,
you must be blind not to see my answers.
video artifacts, keep em coming. |
You must be crazy to think you have given any! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | Bushwacker,
you must be blind not to see my answers.
video artifacts, keep em coming. |
You must be crazy to think you have given any! |
i must be crazy trying to talk sense to someone who thinks GW bush is a crazy warmongerer, but dosant accept he could lie over linking 9/11 to start wars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | Bushwacker,
you must be blind not to see my answers.
video artifacts, keep em coming. |
You must be crazy to think you have given any! |
i must be crazy trying to talk sense to someone who thinks GW bush is a crazy warmongerer, but dosant accept he could lie over linking 9/11 to start wars. |
What are you talking about? He did not link 9/11 to Iraq to start a war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM&mode=related&search=
here are even more flashes, on the walls while its still intact, then you get flashes followed by pulverisation, just like a controlled demolition.
they are OBVIOUS! what caused the flashes? don't give me nonsense about steel colliding and sparking, the flashes happen on the walls intact as well as in the smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ |
maybe you could answer this post bushwacker seeing as though you hold all the logic.
watch the full video clip(lasts about 4 mins) you will see flashes on the walls before they have even started to collapse, im looking for the most logical explaination for them. now i have thought it through and so far can only find a simular examples in a known CD(hence the bottom link), and cannot think of any reason why the flashes should be there in a natural collapse.
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.
there is numerous footage showing these flashes even in mainstream news footage. do you think 9/11 truthers made all this up to?
i look forward to your explaination for the flashes that look the same as flashes in a CD.
one link is broken so here they are again with anothers showing other examples of flashes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM&mode=related&search=
link: for flashes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
link: of known CD.
more examples of flashes below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NdEdjhevcU |
But these are nothing like the flashes of a controlled demolition!
In a CD you get long lines of flashes, as a charges go off together, then seconds later, another line goes off in sequence, and the collapse is symmetrical. Again and again you troofers say the WTC collapses are symmetrical, pointing to CD. But these flashes are absolutely random, all over the towers. If they were demolition charges, the collapse would NOT be symmetrical. Also, no collapse follows these flashes.
Secondly, are they flashes? All we can see is lighter areas on the video. The earlier ones seem to be similar to the puffs of smoke that are either demolition squibs, according to troofers, or collapsing floors causing over-pressure to blow out through windows or vents, according to Implosion World. Then they seem to continue, through the smoke even after the demolition wave has passed, what can explain that? If they come from the remains of the upper stories, still crushing down on the lower floors, they might again be caused by collapsing floors, from the bottom up. They cannot be CD explosions because the upperfloors are falling at that point. They might just be video artifacts of some sort, I really do not know. |
thanks for confirming your full of **** and will excuse anything that raises questions about the offical version, at this point it is confirmed you are only bothered about being right or gatekeeping and will offer up a multitude of explainations that are not convincing to protect your stance.
your end sentence says it all. you really don't know but that don't stop you
ridiculing and ******* on those who want a new investigastion to find out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: |
.........they may also have been attas passport flying through the building, before landing convieniently multiple blocks away. |
You still have done no research on that have you? You really are the perfect sucker. |
on the contrary, its you thats sucking on the teat of misinformation sites. |
OK then, show us where Atta's passport flying through the building and landing multiple blocks away is part of the "official story" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | Bushwacker,
you must be blind not to see my answers.
video artifacts, keep em coming. |
You must be crazy to think you have given any! |
i must be crazy trying to talk sense to someone who thinks GW bush is a crazy warmongerer, but dosant accept he could lie over linking 9/11 to start wars. |
What are you talking about? He did not link 9/11 to Iraq to start a war. |
He didant link afghanistan to 9/11? you really are confused.
he also linked iraq to 9/11, along with, regime change, wmd's etc etc, the stories of iraq being a threat changed week to week, its easy to see how you missed it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM&mode=related&search=
here are even more flashes, on the walls while its still intact, then you get flashes followed by pulverisation, just like a controlled demolition.
they are OBVIOUS! what caused the flashes? don't give me nonsense about steel colliding and sparking, the flashes happen on the walls intact as well as in the smoke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ |
maybe you could answer this post bushwacker seeing as though you hold all the logic.
watch the full video clip(lasts about 4 mins) you will see flashes on the walls before they have even started to collapse, im looking for the most logical explaination for them. now i have thought it through and so far can only find a simular examples in a known CD(hence the bottom link), and cannot think of any reason why the flashes should be there in a natural collapse.
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.
there is numerous footage showing these flashes even in mainstream news footage. do you think 9/11 truthers made all this up to?
i look forward to your explaination for the flashes that look the same as flashes in a CD.
one link is broken so here they are again with anothers showing other examples of flashes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM&mode=related&search=
link: for flashes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
link: of known CD.
more examples of flashes below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NdEdjhevcU |
But these are nothing like the flashes of a controlled demolition!
In a CD you get long lines of flashes, as a charges go off together, then seconds later, another line goes off in sequence, and the collapse is symmetrical. Again and again you troofers say the WTC collapses are symmetrical, pointing to CD. But these flashes are absolutely random, all over the towers. If they were demolition charges, the collapse would NOT be symmetrical. Also, no collapse follows these flashes.
Secondly, are they flashes? All we can see is lighter areas on the video. The earlier ones seem to be similar to the puffs of smoke that are either demolition squibs, according to troofers, or collapsing floors causing over-pressure to blow out through windows or vents, according to Implosion World. Then they seem to continue, through the smoke even after the demolition wave has passed, what can explain that? If they come from the remains of the upper stories, still crushing down on the lower floors, they might again be caused by collapsing floors, from the bottom up. They cannot be CD explosions because the upperfloors are falling at that point. They might just be video artifacts of some sort, I really do not know. |
thanks for confirming your full of **** and will excuse anything that raises questions about the offical version, at this point it is confirmed you are only bothered about being right or gatekeeping and will offer up a multitude of explainations that are not convincing to protect your stance.
your end sentence says it all. you really don't know but that don't stop you
ridiculing and ******* on those who want a new investigastion to find out. |
Just calm down and explain how random explosions around the building, if they are explosions, could lead to a symmetrical collapse, and how you would propose that the flashes should be investigated. Failing that, it is you who is full of ****, I am afraid! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | What are you talking about? He did not link 9/11 to Iraq to start a war. |
He didant link afghanistan to 9/11? you really are confused. |
Do you have difficulty reading?
I R A Q is not the same as A F G H A N I S T A N |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the second video shows random flashes that are not accounted for in any investigastion done.
the first video showed multiple flashes down the wall prior to it turning to dust, again the flashes are not accounted for in any investigastion.
the flashes are simular to flashes in a CD as i have shown(who mentioned sequence patterns?  like they would be the same in every CD anyway, not.)
do i know the flashes are coursed by CD, no. but the simularities raise questions.
you admit you don't really know what they are yet you ridicule, mock and make-up things to support your stance.
yes you make-up(the thing you accuse truthers of) reasons for things without really knowing.
go back through this thread and look at the comments you make about truthers, then there you are making up the reasons for the flashes then admitting you don't really know.
all people want is a new properly funded impartial investigastion, why mock that when you don't know the reasons for certain things yourself?
its proof as far as im concerned your only bothered about one of two things.
1.being right.
2.doing your job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you do not have symmetrical explosions, how can you have a symmetrical collapse?
How can anyone investigate what may or may not be flashes?
Show me something I have made up - I have suggested what these apparent flashes might be, without claiming that is what they definitely are, so have you. Are you making things up? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | If you do not have symmetrical explosions, how can you have a symmetrical collapse?
How can anyone investigate what may or may not be flashes?
Show me something I have made up - I have suggested what these apparent flashes might be, without claiming that is what they definitely are, so have you. Are you making things up? |
no i did'nt make anything up. i showed the flashes and compared them to a random CD, the simularties raised questions. i asked critics those questions. one critic ignored it anyother make ups up the reason for the flashes whilst mocking truthers then admits he don't really know.
but hey if there are flashes that look simular to flashes in a CD then we must always put them down to the bizzare or make up the reasons for them rather than just call for new investigastion that covers or explains all the things that so far have not been right?
ok so ill just make up the reason then(but i must remember it car'nt be anything to do with CD even if it points to that with all the other evidence on top) eeeerrmm it was the sun reflecting of the windows.
yes there we go it was the sun, now i don't know that but it could be the sun, so who cares if that is true or not and it could be a CD the fact is it could be the sun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | If you do not have symmetrical explosions, how can you have a symmetrical collapse?
How can anyone investigate what may or may not be flashes?
Show me something I have made up - I have suggested what these apparent flashes might be, without claiming that is what they definitely are, so have you. Are you making things up? |
no i did'nt make anything up. i showed the flashes and compared them to a random CD, the simularties raised questions. i asked critics those questions. one critic ignored it anyother make ups up the reason for the flashes whilst mocking truthers then admits he don't really know.
but hey if there are flashes that look simular to flashes in a CD then we must always put them down to the bizzare or make up the reasons for them rather than just call for new investigastion that covers or explains all the things that so far have not been right?
ok so ill just make up the reason then(but i must remember it car'nt be anything to do with CD even if it points to that with all the other evidence on top) eeeerrmm it was the sun reflecting of the windows.
yes there we go it was the sun, now i don't know that but it could be the sun, so who cares if that is true or not and it could be a CD the fact is it could be the sun. |
You suggested a reason for the flashes, I suggested a reason for the flashes. We were doing the same thing.
You compared them to a CD and found similarities, I compared them to a CD and found differencies.
I compared them to the puffs coming out of the building that Implosion World says are caused by collapsing floors, you ignore that.
I ask how anyone can investigate what might or might not be flashes and you ignore that.
Neither of us know what these things are, we can only speculate. Are they enough to warrant a new investigation, when you cannot even suggest how they should be investigated? I think not.
To get a new investigation, what you need is not something like this that just raises a question, but something that shows beyond doubt that the conclusions of previous investigations were substantially wrong. At the moment there is nothing like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | Bushwacker,
you must be blind not to see my answers.
video artifacts, keep em coming. |
You must be crazy to think you have given any! |
i must be crazy trying to talk sense to someone who thinks GW bush is a crazy warmongerer, but dosant accept he could lie over linking 9/11 to start wars. |
What are you talking about? He did not link 9/11 to Iraq to start a war. |
He didant link afghanistan to 9/11? you really are confused.
he also linked iraq to 9/11, along with, regime change, wmd's etc etc, the stories of iraq being a threat changed week to week, its easy to see how you missed it. |
Bushwacker,
a classic case again of you twisting the debate,
what part of linking 9/11 to start wars dont you understand.
linking 9/11 to afghanistan,?
classic smoke and mirrors from you yet again, suprise suprise |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Long Tooth
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Apr 2007
Posts: 306
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Long Tooth wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | What are you talking about? He did not link 9/11 to Iraq to start a war. |
He didant link afghanistan to 9/11? you really are confused. |
Do you have difficulty reading?
I R A Q is not the same as A F G H A N I S T A N |
I said linking 9/11 to start wars,
you replied, linking 9/11 to iraq.
i said linking 9/11 to afghanistan.
Hello, cuckoo, cuckoo, linking 9/11 to start wars, hello, 9/11, afghanistan, keep up boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | If you do not have symmetrical explosions, how can you have a symmetrical collapse?
How can anyone investigate what may or may not be flashes?
Show me something I have made up - I have suggested what these apparent flashes might be, without claiming that is what they definitely are, so have you. Are you making things up? |
no i did'nt make anything up. i showed the flashes and compared them to a random CD, the simularties raised questions. i asked critics those questions. one critic ignored it anyother make ups up the reason for the flashes whilst mocking truthers then admits he don't really know.
but hey if there are flashes that look simular to flashes in a CD then we must always put them down to the bizzare or make up the reasons for them rather than just call for new investigastion that covers or explains all the things that so far have not been right?
ok so ill just make up the reason then(but i must remember it car'nt be anything to do with CD even if it points to that with all the other evidence on top) eeeerrmm it was the sun reflecting of the windows.
yes there we go it was the sun, now i don't know that but it could be the sun, so who cares if that is true or not and it could be a CD the fact is it could be the sun. |
You suggested a reason for the flashes, I suggested a reason for the flashes. We were doing the same thing.
You compared them to a CD and found similarities, I compared them to a CD and found differencies.
I compared them to the puffs coming out of the building that Implosion World says are caused by collapsing floors, you ignore that.
I ask how anyone can investigate what might or might not be flashes and you ignore that.
Neither of us know what these things are, we can only speculate. Are they enough to warrant a new investigation, when you cannot even suggest how they should be investigated? I think not.
To get a new investigation, what you need is not something like this that just raises a question, but something that shows beyond doubt that the conclusions of previous investigations were substantially wrong. At the moment there is nothing like that. |
yes to which you will make-up reasons that are simply made up of the top of your head then you say we are making things up, but the differance is we offer something else to show it other than just making it up of the top of our heads.
if it could be a CD then it needs to be investigated the same as if life could exists on other planets it needs to be investigated etc etc etc etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
there are many simular things seen in the destruction of the towers to explosions/CD, therefore untill it is investigated it will always remain a possibility and always down to individuals to decide which conspiracy theory fits the evidence best, the offical one or the alternative.
there is already more than enough things to warrent it being investigated, the only reason it is'nt is because it is ignored and hidden from the public, i am yet to see a fair documentary put on TV that puts 9/11 truths argument across for people to decide for themselves if there is anything in it, apart for a few. and they even hide facts from the public and used ridicule instead of fairness and avoided most of the arguement if not all, so if we are laughable and wrong and our arguement is wrong why the avoidance of fairness and debate in public?
why should it be more logical to put it all down to the things you make-up of the top of your head than get a new investigastion to actually find out?
what! your reasons must be true when you don't know yourself if your reasons are true?
oh because if someone sits on the otherside of a computer making things up then that somehow must mean 9/11 truthers are wrong?
the fact is there are numerous things that contridict the offical version and it should be investigated, someone making up reasons does not make the reasons true or what truthers claim wrong. only an investigastion can do that.
if 9/11 could of been an inside job then it needs to be investigated it dos'nt need someone to prove it before hand, it just needs reason to believe it, and there is plenty of that about no matter how much you deny it or make-up excuses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
