Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomCube.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5784328 - 06/23/06 04:40 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> Here is an example of right wing loonies t

Me, right wing? I'm about as middle of the road as one can get.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #5786341 - 06/24/06 11:21 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
I can't believe I only became aware of this in the last few months. Indeed, people in the sub levels said explosions went off down there and turned rooms in the sub levels to rubble and that there was lots of white smoke, disintigrated hydrolic equipment, collapsing walls and injuries from them.




There are many testimonies of explosions not only in sub-levels, but also in levels higher up in the towers. Many reports of multiple and synchronized explosions, of a huge explosion right before the collapse, of "pops" as the tower went down...The collapse of the twin towers and wtc7 actually fulfill all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. And for wtc7, there's no question of whether or not the collapse was planned, since the owner, Larry Silverstein, admitted on a PBS documentary that he decided to pull the building, which means to bring it down. And the government explained that the wtc7 collapse was due to small fires!!!

Now the plannification of demolishing a building takes quite some time and is obviously complex, yet wtc7 came down just 7 hours after WTC1! The bombs were in there before the terrorist attack, it was planned long before the attacks.



Quote:

Interesting that the owner of WTC 7 is said to have said that he made the decision to pull (demolish) his building that day. Is it true that he received a little over 8 hundred million, from his insurance companay, when the cost to rebuild it was only around 300 million and that he profited 5 hundred million?




Silverstein made much huger profits than that! Just two months prior to 9/11, he acquired a 99-year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex for 3.2 billion dollars, this is the only time that the WTC ever changed hands.The insurance policy for the complex even included a clause that would prove extremely valuable in the event of a terrorist attack. He made a 500 million dollar profit just over WTC7. And he had been going to court for some time over the twin towers destruction, claiming he was entitled to twice the insurance policies' value, because the attacks were "separate occurences". Well he ended winning that legal battle in december 2004 and he gained two times 3.6 billion dollars...that's 7.2 billion.

Its note-worthy to mention that on 9/11, when Silverstein was supposed to be working in the north tower, he was actually at a doctor's appointment. Two of his children who worked in a restaurant at the top of north tower managed to run late to work that morning. Plus, 54 of his 160 staff members working for his company were in the towers when the plane crashed on it, and 4 of them died.


Quote:

That question aside, who placed and set the bombs in the WTC 1 and 2? Al Queda could've done that.




Well, guess who was in charge of the security of the WTC, American Airlines, and Dulles International Airport? Marvin Bush, the president's younger brother. Amazing is the fact that his security company called Securacom, had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center up to 9/11! On that particular day, his contract ended!

Then you throw in there the facts that heightened WTC security alert had just been lifted, that bomb sniffing dogs had been removed from the buildings on 9/6, that power down of the entire tower 2 had been going on on 9/8 and 9/9, which means that security cameras and security locks weren't in function for about 36 hours, and you start getting the picture.




Quote:


Aren't the people using that tin foil phrase against others making arm chair clinical psychological diagnosis without any medical evidence for them?

In S&P, the best debaters say that only when people run out of arguments and good points and feel they are loosing a debate, do they resort to the ad hominem attack. If some of you feel so confident about the evidence supporting the official story from the administration, and your ability to counter all objections to it raised, you shouldn't have to resort to ad homonyms in the debates.

The two people using them in here, where they are against the rules are a mod and an admin as well.






Good point.  :thumbup:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: Seuss]
    #5787614 - 06/24/06 09:10 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Maybe you are not right wing, but that is a celebrated right wing tactic to attack a persons character to discredit what they are saying. My apologies if you do not fit this bill, but that particular post did.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: exclusive58]
    #5789076 - 06/25/06 10:33 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

exclusive58 said:
Quote:

gettinjiggywithit said:
I can't believe I only became aware of this in the last few months. Indeed, people in the sub levels said explosions went off down there and turned rooms in the sub levels to rubble and that there was lots of white smoke, disintigrated hydrolic equipment, collapsing walls and injuries from them.




There are many testimonies of explosions not only in sub-levels, but also in levels higher up in the towers. Many reports of multiple and synchronized explosions, of a huge explosion right before the collapse, of "pops" as the tower went down...The collapse of the twin towers and wtc7 actually fulfill all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. And for wtc7, there's no question of whether or not the collapse was planned, since the owner, Larry Silverstein, admitted on a PBS documentary that he decided to pull the building, which means to bring it down. And the government explained that the wtc7 collapse was due to small fires!!!




Bullshit.  You offer nothing here except pointless nonsense and call it proof.  Silverstein did not admit anything of the kind, only lunatics think it was a controlled demolition and the government never said it collapsed due to small fires
Quote:



Now the plannification of demolishing a building takes quite some time and is obviously complex, yet wtc7 came down just 7 hours after WTC1! The bombs were in there before the terrorist attack, it was planned long before the attacks.




Right, men in black hats were planting tons of explosives surreptitously for several weeks and nobody saw anything. 
Quote:





Quote:

Interesting that the owner of WTC 7 is said to have said that he made the decision to pull (demolish) his building that day. Is it true that he received a little over 8 hundred million, from his insurance companay, when the cost to rebuild it was only around 300 million and that he profited 5 hundred million?




Silverstein made much huger profits than that! Just two months prior to 9/11, he acquired a 99-year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex for 3.2 billion dollars, this is the only time that the WTC ever changed hands.



This is untrue in several ways.  First of all Silverstein already owned WTC 7.  Second of all, signing a lease does not constitute a change of hands.  The Port Authority still owned (and continues to own) the other buildings.  Finally, Silverstein is obligated to rebuild.  I don't know where you get the notion that WTC 7 can be built for less than half the money it was insured for.  No insurance company has ever been that stupid and these are apparently not either.

"Silverstein has applied for up to $400 million in tax-exempt bonds under the New York Liberty Bond Program to finance the shortfall in sources of funds for the project, a gap based on the estimated total project costs of $1.2 billion less $796 million in available insurance proceeds."
http://www.newyorkbiz.com/About_Us/getPressReleasePreview2003_detail.cfm?id=169

For the ignorant, bonds are not grants, they are loans.
Where you ever got the notion that WTC 7 could be rebuilt for $300M is probably the same place you got the rest of your lies.
Quote:



The insurance policy for the complex even included a clause that would prove extremely valuable in the event of a terrorist attack. He made a 500 million dollar profit just over WTC7. And he had been going to court for some time over the twin towers destruction, claiming he was entitled to twice the insurance policies' value, because the attacks were "separate occurences". Well he ended winning that legal battle in december 2004 and he gained two times 3.6 billion dollars...that's 7.2 billion.




No.  These are flagrant lies.  Number one, and this is really just the most obvious.  He doesn't get the money.  He has to rebuild and the money isn't enough.  Number two, he didn't win the big case, he lost.  He won a smaller jury trial for 2 separate events but lost the bigger one.  This gives a summary of the insurance payouts.

"As a private developer with a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center, Silverstein insured the property. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, he sought payment for the destruction of the towers as two incidents. The two dozen insurers held that it was one incident. If it were considered to be a single incident, the payout would be $3.55 billion and if it were two incidents, it would be $7.1 billion. Silverstein sued the insurers. On December 6, 2004, a federal jury ruled in favor of Silverstein giving him an additional $1.1 billion from nine insurers, declaring it to be two "occurrences". [5] However, in a previous trial, a different federal jury delivered a mixed verdict which highly favored insurers on April 29, 2004 [6]

At dispute in the trial were interpretation of standard forms used in the application for property insurance and when particular insurers saw which documents.[7]

In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [8]. In April 2006, rebuilding cost was estimated to be $6.3 billion. [9]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silve...ote><font class="small">


Quote:

Its note-worthy to mention that on 9/11, when Silverstein was supposed to be working in the north tower, he was actually at a doctor's appointment. Two of his children who worked in a restaurant at the top of north tower managed to run late to work that morning. Plus, 54 of his 160 staff members working for his company were in the towers when the plane crashed on it, and 4 of them died.




Utterly meaningless innuendo.
Quote:



Quote:

That question aside, who placed and set the bombs in the WTC 1 and 2? Al Queda could've done that.




Well, guess who was in charge of the security of the WTC, American Airlines, and Dulles International Airport? Marvin Bush, the president's younger brother. Amazing is the fact that his security company called Securacom, had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center up to 9/11! On that particular day, his contract ended!

Then you throw in there the facts that heightened WTC security alert had just been lifted, that bomb sniffing dogs had been removed from the buildings on 9/6, that power down of the entire tower 2 had been going on on 9/8 and 9/9, which means that security cameras and security locks weren't in function for about 36 hours, and you start getting the picture.




What picture?  That enough explosives could be planted in 36 hrs (or 96 hrs.)to blow all of these buildings in a controlled demo?  If the power was down in 2 how did they get the explosives into 1 and 7?  Really?  Unbelievable, in every way.  That it could've been done and that anybody would think so.  But wait, didn't you say this earlier
Quote:


Now the plannification of demolishing a building takes quite some time and is obviously complex, yet wtc7 came down just 7 hours after WTC1! The bombs were in there before the terrorist attack, it was planned long before the attacks.


Which is it?  Did they plant the bombs in the last few days or did it take some time?
Quote:







Quote:


Aren't the people using that tin foil phrase against others making arm chair clinical psychological diagnosis without any medical evidence for them?

In S&P, the best debaters say that only when people run out of arguments and good points and feel they are loosing a debate, do they resort to the ad hominem attack. If some of you feel so confident about the evidence supporting the official story from the administration, and your ability to counter all objections to it raised, you shouldn't have to resort to ad homonyms in the debates.

The two people using them in here, where they are against the rules are a mod and an admin as well.






Good point.  :thumbup:




S&P land of fruits and nuts.  (ad homonyms?  Get me a fucking stretcher, I wrenched my back when I fell out of my chair).  Just to summarize the insurance facts I presented (as opposed to the insurance lies Mr 58 presented)  For #7 Silverstein got $796M, estimated cost $1.2B.  Loss to Silverstein $400M.  For #1 & #2 Silverstein got $5B, estimated cost $6.3B.  Loss to Silverstein $1.3B.  Let's see, actual loss of $1.7B plus loss of revenue from 99 year $3.2B lease (which really was a total boondoggle), his losses are in the tens of billions of dollars.  If you sign a 99 year lease for a piece of property that would cost twice as much as the total value of the lease to rebuild, in the first year, you sure as shit have no interest in seeing it brought down.  Some people are just beyond reason.  And I don't mean Silverstein.


--------------------


Edited by Phred (06/25/06 11:02 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5789517 - 06/25/06 02:31 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Wow, zappa, I love it when you forget the insults and just argue your point with great accuracy. OK, you didn't really leave the insults aside this time (do you ever?), but at least your point about insurance money was accurate and supported by facts.

I am thus all the more saddened when there are only insults and no fact whatsoever:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Silverstein did not admit anything of the kind, only lunatics think it was a controlled demolition and the government never said it collapsed due to small fires



In fact, Silverstein did. Everyone knows the quote, so I won't repeat it here.
The thing is, when he finally tried to explain his "pull it" comment, he gave himself away. This is from the communiqué he issued:
(see http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html)
Quote:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed.


Hold it, something's wrong here. Several official sources contradict this.
Quote:

On 01/29/01, the New York Times wrote:
By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander  in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it [i.e. WTC7] for safety reasons.



Quote:

In its debunking article, Popular Mechanics wrote:
"There was no firefighting in WTC 7," [NISTs'] Sunder says.



Quote:

Fire Engineering wrote:
Given the limited water supply and the first strategic priority, which was to search for survivors in the rubble, FDNY did not fight the fires [inside WTC7], which were on the lower floors and burned for hours.



Quote:

FEMA wrote:
In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers.




So what we're told here is that, in the afternoon, Silverstein advised the firefighters' commander to pull [out] firefighters, that this was done later in the day, but that those firefighters weren't there in the first place, since there had been no firefighting, and the commander (the same one or another?) had ordered his men away from WTC7 at 11.30. So what the hell did Silverstein want the commander to "pull" then?

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
only lunatics think it was a controlled demolition


Many commentators and reporters spontaneously compared the collapses of the WTC towers, and especially WTC7, to controlled demolitions. Several scholars, having studied the case, think controlled demo is the only explanation. None of these people are locked up in asylums or have otherwise been diagnosed with psychosis, schizophrenia or other mental illnesses. Do not resort so lightly to lunacy as an explanation. If you wish to do so, you have to substantiate it with facts.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
the government never said it collapsed due to small fires


This is interesting. What then, according to you, was the official cause given by official institutions for the WTC7 collapse?
Quote:

FEMA wrote:
... it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.




Thank you for consistently keeping up high standards of debate and argument... in the future.  :heart:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: Aldous]
    #5789570 - 06/25/06 02:54 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Strangely, we find Phred sneaking out of the thread just as he gets sent on a mission.

Just to add some elements, watch this video interview of Steven Jones. In it, he explains he analyzed a piece of previously molten metal from the WTC towers, and that it contained iron oxyde and sulfur, among other things. According to him, this is consistent with the use of thermate (= thermite + sulfur). He also explains that he found a 1999 patent for a Linear Cutting Device allowing to use thermate or thermite to cut thick steel following very precise lines, like in the picture below (note the 45° angle of the cut in the middle of the pic, allowing the building to collapse once the steel is cut; also note the drippings of (previously) molten metal on the inside and outside of the column).




After discussing with demolition specialists, he states that the Twin Towers would have taken only about 2,000 pounds of explosives to demolish, and that this would have taken a few weeks to plan, and a few days to materially prepare (plant the explosives).

Strangely, the result of his chemical analysis had already been produced by official sources before, but those were at a loss for explanations:
see http://cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1201eutectic
Quote:

The Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (JOM) reports that the examination of a beam from the remains of WTC Building 7—which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 (see (5:20 p.m.))—has revealed “unexpected erosion” of the steel. The article states: “The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached around 1,000°C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a ‘blacksmith’s weld’ in a hand forge.” [Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson, 12/2001] The New York Times will call this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” [New York Times, 2/2/2002] FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, released in May 2002 (see May 1, 2002), will add that the same “unusual erosion patterns” have been observed in a sample of the remaining structural steel from one of the twin towers. It will state, “This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.” FEMA is unable to explain this phenomenon, saying, “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion ... are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. ... It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.” [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. C-1 - C-13] Despite FEMA’s call for further research, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will make no mention of the eutectic formations in its final report into the WTC collapses, released in late 2005, following its three-year investigation. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005 pdf file]




C'mon Phred, catch'em!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: Aldous]
    #5789802 - 06/25/06 04:32 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I do not construe what Silverstein said to be an admission that he ordered a controlled demolition to proceed. He either misspoke or he was misinterpreted. The explanation could be that he just told the people doing the work that, at whatever point it was at in the destruction, it didn't make any more sense to try and save it. Far too much lunacy hinges on the statement of a man under extreme stress. The man would have to be a blithering idiot to destroy the building on purpose. I also think it was impossible for him to do so anyway, the charges would have had to have been set well ahead of time and he would have had to have been able to trigger them at a moments notice. No fucking way.

Do you know what iron oxide is? It's rust. That's right, rust. And sulfur is a common element found....everywhere. I just find the desire to conspiricise (I know, I made the word up) this somewhat pathological. As in those who insist on doing it need help.

Phred does not have an obligation to respond to every lunatic offering here. Or even to show up at all. I stayed out of this for a long time because I think it's stupid, but exclusive58's post was just such a flagrant (and fragrant) bunch of lies and bullshit that I had to step in. The JEW did not benefit from this. Nobody did.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDavid_vs_Goliath
Informer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5789923 - 06/25/06 05:14 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

nobody but the neo-conservative leaders of our nation who started a war because of it while in the process striking terror into the minds of all Americans which in turn made them vulnerable to drastic changes in our democracy....or haliburton


--------------------
"People living deeply have no fear of death."
"Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love."
"Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMasFina
Snow Shredder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 788
Loc: Mountains
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: Aldous]
    #5790734 - 06/25/06 10:01 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Hell yeah Aldous. That video gives me hope that the truth will be out shortly.


--------------------
A Good Substrate: Poo With Extras
Good Liquid Culture, Step by Step
Timer Modification
PM me if you are interested in buying 140ml syringes. $6 each + $7 shipping


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5791194 - 06/26/06 12:36 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The explanation could be that he just told the people doing the work that, at whatever point it was at in the destruction, it didn't make any more sense to try and save it.


You must have read over all the well-sourced statements I quoted above. There were no "people doing the work". None. At all.
And simply repeating what our friend Silverstein tried to explain won't make it make sense.

Quote:

Far too much lunacy hinges on the statement of a man under extreme stress.


He wasn't under any stress when he made the statement. It was months later, in a movie.

Quote:

the charges would have had to have been set well ahead of time


OK, we agree again.  :wink:

Quote:

Do you know what iron oxide is?  It's rust.  That's right, rust.


Sure it's rust, I knew that. That doesn't change anything to the fact it's a basic ingredient of the thermite reaction. Do your homework before you get carried away.

Quote:

And sulfur is a common element found....everywhere.


Great zappa, you should tell the scientists (or are they loonies, or moonbats?) at FEMA, they seemed to have no idea. Glad you could clear this up.

Quote:

Phred does not have an obligation to respond to every lunatic offering here.  Or even to show up at all.


Sure he doesn't. I just thought he would be interested, since he seems so eager to debunk anything coming from the tinfoil hat brigade, and since he sends people on missions himself. He has no obligation at all. Only, if he stays away from this, it would come across as conspicuous, and the moonbats would think they have a point. And he can't call it beating a dead horse either, since this thermate issue, with analysis results, has never even come up here.

So I remain in hopeful expectation.  :sun:


Edited by Aldous (06/26/06 12:45 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: Aldous]
    #5791325 - 06/26/06 01:25 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

and since he sends people on missions himself




Indeed, he sent me on a mission to read past threads about things not even directly related to my main point.

And just to be clear, just because someone like Phred or Zappa thinks they have won a debate in a previous thread, does not in anyway, make that thread a work of factual evidence. From what I can tell the old threads I was pointed to, was just Phred debating in his usual manner: sidestepping his opponents points while rehashing the official story over and over again, tossing in the occasional moonbat or tinfoil hat insults.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMasFina
Snow Shredder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/06
Posts: 788
Loc: Mountains
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5791639 - 06/26/06 04:33 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Republican tactics


--------------------
A Good Substrate: Poo With Extras
Good Liquid Culture, Step by Step
Timer Modification
PM me if you are interested in buying 140ml syringes. $6 each + $7 shipping


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #5791762 - 06/26/06 07:25 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

RosettaStoned writes:

Quote:

From what I can tell the old threads I was pointed to, was just Phred debating in his usual manner: sidestepping his opponents points while rehashing the official story over and over again, tossing in the occasional moonbat or tinfoil hat insults.




Still haven't bothered to read the threads, I see. If you had, you would notice that far from sidestepping the points my opponents raised, I addressed each and every one, while my opponents dodged many of mine, just as you have done from the beginning of our exchange. Which reminds me...

You STILL haven't gotten substantiated the very first nonsense I called you on way back on the first page of the thread, specifically your claims that --

Quote:

"There is far too much evidence out there showing that the FBI was monitoring some of the hijackers every moves, then went to nab then and pentagon lawyers and top pentagon brass stepped in and prevented it"




Would you please provide us a link showing the FBI was monitoring "every move" of some of the hijackers. Then please provide us a link showing they had decided to arrest them. Then please provide us a link showing where the FBI falls under the jurisdiction of the military, hence would halt these planned arrests because some military personnel nixed it.

While you're at it, please provide us the links supporting your assertion that some FBI agents had their lives and the lives of their families threatened (by whom?) if they didn't back off.

Thanks.



Phred


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: Aldous]
    #5792195 - 06/26/06 11:22 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I think way too much is being made over this statement by Silverstein. Do you honestly think he intentionally admitted that there was a demolition plan in place to blow up his own underinsured building, which would have taken months of secret charge setting? It's so absurd on its face that you would have to fabricate some nonsense about the amount of the insurance payout and severely under report the cost of reconstruction to make even the least bit of sense out of this conspiracy. The guy lost BILLIONS. Lost, not made.

It's all well and good that rusty iron is a trigger for a thermite explosion. The presence of rusty iron does not however constitute evidence that there was a thermite explosion. It is far too common a substance. As is sulfur. And have you ever seen one of those shows about controlled demolitions? They fucking gut the building down to structural members first. They don't do it to salvage material. They do it so that the stuff they remove doesn't interfere with the drop. It is so utterly impossible to surreptitiously set explosives through a building of that size as to be laughable that anyone would believe it could be done. Charges would have had to have been strapped to columns in common areas, with wires dangling all over the place. Even a herd of retards would have been aroused. How about this. It would have taken dozens of workers months to do this. Don't you find it the least bit interesting that nobody has written a book about it yet? For huge money. We can't even shut the CIA up. So all of a sudden there is this tremendous black op for a private businessman. Fucking A, man, get a grip. Hat, foil, some assembly required.

Although the Wiki says that the loss of WTC7 is unexplained, there is not a shred of evidence to support the notion that it was brought down by preset charges. Further, this has nothing at all to do with 1 and 2, the towers, which were quite clearly struck by airplanes


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5792295 - 06/26/06 11:54 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

I think way too much is being made over this statement by Silverstein. Do you honestly think he intentionally admitted that there was a demolition plan in place to blow up his own underinsured building, which would have taken months of secret charge setting?




But he said they were gonna pull the building. I wonder if he meant "pull out of" the building. I haven't seen the interview in a while. It isn't as if it were a confusing day or anything.

Quote:

It's so absurd on its face that you would have to fabricate some nonsense about the amount of the insurance payout and severely under report the cost of reconstruction to make even the least bit of sense out of this conspiracy. The guy lost BILLIONS. Lost, not made.




But the guy is gonna make money from insurance! Really, he is! I saw this post on another forum, and somebody said the guy is gonna get rich from this. So there!

Quote:

It's all well and good that rusty iron is a trigger for a thermite explosion. The presence of rusty iron does not however constitute evidence that there was a thermite explosion. It is far too common a substance. As is sulfur.




Yep. Thermite did it. See, thermite gets really hot and can melt stuff and that is how they brought the buildings down. And explosives too... in case the thermite didn't work. The planes were just a smoke screen. They had giant space based lasers on the moon too, just in case the planes, explosives, and thermite failed.

Quote:

And have you ever seen one of those shows about controlled demolitions?




Nope, but I watched the towers get blowed up and learned all I need to know from the 9/11 footage.

Quote:

They fucking gut the building down to structural members first. They don't do it to salvage material. They do it so that the stuff they remove doesn't interfere with the drop. It is so utterly impossible to surreptitiously set explosives through a building of that size as to be laughable that anyone would believe it could be done. Charges would have had to have been strapped to columns in common areas, with wires dangling all over the place. Even a herd of retards would have been aroused. How about this. It would have taken dozens of workers months to do this.




But I read this one company knocked down a building that had already half fallen in just three or four days! Explain that!

Quote:

Don't you find it the least bit interesting that nobody has written a book about it yet? For huge money. We can't even shut the CIA up. So all of a sudden there is this tremendous black op for a private businessman. Fucking A, man, get a grip. Hat, foil, some assembly required.




They can't keep conspiracies from us! We know all about the fake moon landings and about the fake planes that crashed into the towers. Try again.

Quote:

Although the Wiki says that the loss of WTC7 is unexplained, there is not a shred of evidence to support the notion that it was brought down by preset charges. Further, this has nothing at all to do with 1 and 2, the towers, which were quite clearly struck by airplanes




Evidence!?!? Who said anything about facts or evidence? It is obvious! Open your eyes and look. Sheesh... quit trying to make sense, and accept that science and facts are often wrong and my gut feeling and what I see on TV is always correct.

Here is my impression of debating against the TFH Brigade: http://www.shroomery.org/seuss/Ma_Pa_Math.wmv (4 meg, sorry about the format)


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: Seuss]
    #5792359 - 06/26/06 12:22 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

That was beautiful. I miss those old movies very much. "Evidence? We don't need no steenking evidence."


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5792444 - 06/26/06 12:52 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

exclusive58 said:
The collapse of the twin towers and wtc7 actually fulfill all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. And for wtc7, there's no question of whether or not the collapse was planned, since the owner, Larry Silverstein, admitted on a PBS documentary that he decided to pull the building, which means to bring it down. And the government explained that the wtc7 collapse was due to small fires!!!




Bullshit. You offer nothing here except pointless nonsense and call it proof. Silverstein did not admit anything of the kind, only lunatics think it was a controlled demolition and the government never said it collapsed due to small fires




I'm starting to get used to your useless vulgarity, but it'd be so much better if you could just drop it, plus it'd make you look a little more credible, since none of what I said there was BS.

As Aldous pointed out, the FEMA report said the wtc7 was most probably caused by fires, and the report's conclusion goes as follows:

Quote:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.




They say they would have needed more investigation and research to resolve the issue...but what can you do when nearly all the evidence has been destroyed!?!


Second, Silverstein DID talk about pulling the building down in the PBS documentary, let me quote him for you:

Quote:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.




What else do you want?? I'm interested to see how you're going to twist this quote into making it say that it wasn't demolished, just so you can go on and avoid seeing the awful truth. And don't give me any of that "he was under stressful conditions when he said that" nonsense.

And apart from this very revealing quote, the collapse of WTC7 exhibited all the features of a controlled demolition, I suggest you watch 9/11 Revisited, at the end there's a scientific expert that does a review of all of them.

In reality, to suppose that a cause other than controlled demolition was responsible for the collpase of wtc7 just defies logic.


Concerning Silverstein's insurance money, it seems that I didn't get my facts straight, I checked your claims and they seem to be correct, my bad.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5792480 - 06/26/06 01:03 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
That was beautiful.  I miss those old movies very much.  "Evidence?  We don't need no steenking evidence."




Yes, no steenking evidence or badges. We all saw the planes crash and buildings fall and heard the stories of lives devastated by personal losses. Either way, a lot was senselessly destroyed by someone and thats a fact we all agree on.

What we need is more love and understanding in this world and less blame and judgment. Fuck the evidence either way. There are some sick puppies out there that'll pop a bullet in you just for looking at them funny. More keep being bred with the disease passed on to them. It seems to even be a contagious one if your immunity to it is low. No matter who they are, how do you heal that sort of sickness in others?

Hey Zaps. I'm curious about something. Do you believe OJ is innocent? Just wondering since the evidence the courts felt they didn't need of his blood all over the murder scene, was deemed inadmissible due to incredibility of the officer who collected it. He had a racial bias so he could've extracted OJs blood from him some how and planted it to put a black man and American foot ball hero in jail just for shits and giggles.

They didn't need that steenking evidence anyway because he was innocent, right? :wink:

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: exclusive58]
    #5792561 - 06/26/06 01:37 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

exclusive58 said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

exclusive58 said:
The collapse of the twin towers and wtc7 actually fulfill all the characteristics of a controlled demolition. And for wtc7, there's no question of whether or not the collapse was planned, since the owner, Larry Silverstein, admitted on a PBS documentary that he decided to pull the building, which means to bring it down. And the government explained that the wtc7 collapse was due to small fires!!!




Bullshit. You offer nothing here except pointless nonsense and call it proof. Silverstein did not admit anything of the kind, only lunatics think it was a controlled demolition and the government never said it collapsed due to small fires




I'm starting to get used to your useless vulgarity, but it'd be so much better if you could just drop it, plus it'd make you look a little more credible, since none of what I said there was BS.

As Aldous pointed out, the FEMA report said the wtc7 was most probably caused by fires, and the report's conclusion goes as follows:

Quote:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.




They say they would have needed more investigation and research to resolve the issue...but what can you do when nearly all the evidence has been destroyed!?!




You said "small fires'. You also said "there's no question." There's plenty. Some dipshit saying that an offhand comment to "pull the building" is tantamount to an admission of arson and insurance fraud is absurd. See below for alternate interpretation.

Well, what can you do when the evidence has been destroyed? I know. Let's make up a bunch of ridiculous bullshit with no evidence and PUT ON A SHOW. Yeah, that's what we'll do kids. I am almost sorry that you find the word "bullshit" to be vulgar. I find it to be a useful descriptor of idiotic nonsense that is widely understood by almost all English speaking people. Maybe you should have a nice cucumber sandwich and ponder the decline of the English language and the gentility of those who use it so poorly. I, myself, intend to jerk off. You do know what that means, right.
Quote:





Second, Silverstein DID talk about pulling the building down in the PBS documentary, let me quote him for you:

Quote:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.




What else do you want?? I'm interested to see how you're going to twist this quote into making it say that it wasn't demolished, just so you can go on and avoid seeing the awful truth. And don't give me any of that "he was under stressful conditions when he said that" nonsense.




Unfuckingbelievable. It just isn't there. How about,just pull the firemen out and let it go before anybody else gets hurt? But no, it's a conspiracy..... THAT HE ADMITTED TO? Yep, the guy just committed arson and insurance fraud on a scale never before seen and ADMITTED IT. Sure he did. Not even annapurna would do that.
Quote:



And apart from this very revealing quote, the collapse of WTC7 exhibited all the features of a controlled demolition, I suggest you watch 9/11 Revisited, at the end there's a scientific expert that does a review of all of them.




I'm not going to watch that. Ever. I only have so many hours left and I don't intend to waste it on nonsense that is prima facie false. You can find an expert to testify to anything. I won't even bother checking his creds. I don't fucking care.
Quote:



In reality, to suppose that a cause other than controlled demolition was responsible for the collpase of wtc7 just defies logic.




No, what defies logic is that anybody thinks it was possible to set all those charges without anyone noticing anything weird. Get the hat off your head and let the sense rays in.
Quote:




Concerning Silverstein's insurance money, it seems that I didn't get my facts straight, I checked your claims and they seem to be correct, my bad.




So, where's the motivation? Or is he just a murderous Jew out to make Muslims look bad at the cost of billions of dollars to himself? Come on.

I had no interest in this thread until you posted those flagrant lies about Silverstein, since there were no "facts" being bandied about, just idiocies. But you were so far off from what has really gone down that it needed intervention. As an addendum, I believe the whole thing has become so acrimonious between the government and LS that he has relinquished control of the site (1&2) back to the PA. WTC7 has been rebuilt and is open for business. 1&2 remain holes.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
Re: poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories... [Re: Seuss]
    #5792682 - 06/26/06 02:20 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

No no Seuss, you're completely wrong. They did it with bulldozers, remember?

:rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 9/11 Conspiracy & JFK Conspiracy DoctorJ 1,033 12 09/18/03 05:11 AM
by Jellric
* Conspiracy Theories: JFK vs. 9/11
( 1 2 all )
Annapurna1 4,837 30 11/25/03 03:37 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Why the "tanks on the planes" 9--1 conspiracy theory is shit
( 1 2 all )
RandalFlagg 4,968 35 09/13/04 12:45 AM
by Zahid
* Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours
( 1 2 all )
ekomstop 4,255 31 09/23/04 03:27 PM
by ekomstop
* The No-Conspiracy Theory ekomstop 995 5 09/14/04 11:46 AM
by Moonshoe
* Pentagon 9/11 conspiracy fiesta
( 1 2 all )
Dreamer987 3,819 26 09/06/04 12:34 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Conspiracy theories
( 1 2 3 4 all )
LearyfanS 5,095 60 02/17/04 02:53 PM
by TheOneYouKnow
* 9/11 Conspiracy
( 1 2 all )
KingOftheThing 1,753 20 09/17/04 08:17 PM
by ekomstop

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
12,170 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.