Loose Change

[kookbreaker]

EDIT: to cimpmunk
Saddam was an asset to the cia and was on their payroll until before the start of the gulf war in 1990 when he invaded US's ally, kuwait and send his relationship with the US and CIA to a bitter end.

Payroll? We were openly aiding Saddam in his war with Iran. However, since he was a client state of the USSR, who gave him humungous amounts of aid, our aid was a drop in bucket. No doubt some CIA info/money made its way into Saddam's hands during the Iran/Iraq war, but again, peanuts compared to the Soviet aid.

History is not what you think as it is in this excessively secretive world that we live in.

History is also not what you make up at random.

 

[kookbreaker]

building fire, Happylands Social Club, Bronx, N.Y., 1992;
building fire, Dupont Plaza Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1986;
collapse of walkway, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Kansas City, Mo., 1981; and
condominium collapse, Cocoa Beach, Fla., 1981...

Ah, yes. The Cocoa beach condo collapse. Big time CIA operation. Hundreds of black ops agents working on that one.

 

[Manny]

Ah, yes. The Cocoa beach condo collapse. Big time CIA operation. Hundreds of black ops agents working on that one.

As part of their nefarious plot against Hondurans, NIST covered up the second stairway at the Happyland Social Club.

 

[R.Mackey]

All of these are metals. Gravy showed you a picture of molten metal. You were the one who made the leap to molten steel. Nobody here claimed that was a picture of steel. Be very careful about putting words in people's mouths, as it does not help you or your argument to look good.

Absolutely right. In fact, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that picture show molten metal that definitely isn't steel?

Color's wrong. Steel at that color temperature is softened and workable, but not liquid. I also vote for aluminum.

Mr. Geggy, do your ruddy homework. Otherwise nobody will ever take you seriously. Just what is your motive in this, anyway? Selling stupid videos and newsletters to the tinfoil-hatted?

ETA: Looking at the picture again, it might not be metal at all; possibly just embers blurred by camera speed. This is going by the picture alone. Something hot, whatever it was.

 

[kookbreaker]

As part of their nefarious plot against Hondurans, NIST covered up the second stairway at the Happyland Social Club.

Don't be ridiculous your third-eye blinded NIST smoking fool. It was a warning to the King of Spain to make sure they continued to stay out of Florida.

 

[Ramooone]

Absolutely right. In fact, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that picture show molten metal that definitely isn't steel?

Color's wrong. Steel at that color temperature is softened and workable, but not liquid. I also vote for aluminum.

Mr. Geggy, do your ruddy homework. Otherwise nobody will ever take you seriously. Just what is your motive in this, anyway? Selling stupid videos and newsletters to the tinfoil-hatted?

ETA: Looking at the picture again, it might not be metal at all; possibly just embers blurred by camera speed. This is going by the picture alone. Something hot, whatever it was.

thats the thing, it can be anything. we're talking about an office building here, fax machines, computers, chairs, desks, tables you name it. it can be any of those things melting!

the thing i love about the loosers is that if you show them any evidence whatsoever that the 2 towers werent brought down by controlled demolition they immediately jump to their crutch which is WTC7. "Well then how do you explain WTC7 huh?" and then when all the evidence comes out from that they'll find something else to grab onto.

They love to distort info to make themselves look better and from now on im calling them "A Million Little Loosers" in honor of another liar who tried to make himself look better and make a profit off it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Time to whip it out.

geggy,

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid, so stupid it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel.
...
I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative post was pitiful.
...
Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3709544a6e.htm

 

[CptColumbo]

Dang...i cant remember who she was. She probably wasn't an editor but perhaps a reporter, and she contributed to the inside 9/11 documentary. There is just too much info in my brain, I can't recollect every one of them everytime.

They interviewed people from the CIA, as well as other Gov't intelligence agencies, news services, and experts in the middle east, to get their stories. You then get a secondary source to confirm what they told you. That's called investigating.

Usually an investigator collects, looks at, and verifies all the available evidence, before they come to a theory of what may have happened. They do not come to a conclusion then look for evidence to fit that hypothosis, and ignore the facts that don't.

 

[CptColumbo]

Time to whip it out.

geggy,

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3709544a6e.htm

How about this?

Mr. [geggy], what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Thank you to Billy Madison.

 

[pgwenthold]

the thing i love about the loosers is that if you show them any evidence whatsoever that the 2 towers werent brought down by controlled demolition they immediately jump to their crutch which is WTC7. "Well then how do you explain WTC7 huh?" and then when all the evidence comes out from that they'll find something else to grab onto.

.

Somewhere in the early days of this thread, there was a discussion about a possible debate.

I didn't say anything at the time, but I was going to mention that if there is to be a debate, the topic must be extremely narrow. You want to avoid a debate on things like "was 9/11 a conspiracy?" because it is far, far too broad, and results in things like what we see here. As soon as one point is refuted, the CTer drops it and moves onto the next.

If there is going to be a debate, you have to pick a very specific topic. For example, the topic could be "Was WTC7 destroyed by a controlled demolition?" And arguments would have to stay within that topic. NO diverting to the falling of WTC1 or 2. NO pictures of Saddam Hussein. Just address the question of whether WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

The next question will be addressed in the next debate. "Was there molten steel?"

Once the question is settled, there is no going back and reusing the defeated argument.

As I have pointed out before, CTers are a lot like creationists. They throw out piles of crap, at least some of which is blatent distortion (and who knows about the rest), but which have to be refuted. Then throw out more questions. Make it look like they are the ones on the offensive, and that the CW is always being defensive, while never being able to actually produce a case of their own (because they are always having to correct misinformation). When it comes to providing evidence, skip the physics and spend time quote miniing from any source they can find.

If you make them address one single issue, it gets a lot harder because they don't "just have questions" any more. They actually have to provide evidence, which is still often quote mining, but at least on a given topic. Moreover, if it is not on the topic, you can dismiss it as irrelevent to the case at hand. Shoot, there could be a quote from a demolitions expert who claimed to have wired WTC1 and WTC2 with explosives, and it would not address the question of whether WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Cover the "controlled demolition of WTC1" to another day.

But in the end, leaving the topic completely general leads to an unproductive discussion of dodge and weave.

 

[Manny]

Don't be ridiculous your third-eye blinded NIST smoking fool. It was a warning to the King of Spain to make sure they continued to stay out of Florida.

Freaking globalists. I can never figure out what they're up to and I'm one of 'em!

 

[azazal]

How about this?

Thank you to Billy Madison.

(Golf Clap) Good show old man, jolly good show.

 

[CptColumbo]

Somewhere in the early days of this thread, there was a discussion about a possible debate.

I didn't say anything at the time, but I was going to mention that if there is to be a debate, the topic must be extremely narrow. You want to avoid a debate on things like "was 9/11 a conspiracy?" because it is far, far too broad, and results in things like what we see here. As soon as one point is refuted, the CTer drops it and moves onto the next.

If there is going to be a debate, you have to pick a very specific topic. For example, the topic could be "Was WTC7 destroyed by a controlled demolition?" And arguments would have to stay within that topic. NO diverting to the falling of WTC1 or 2. NO pictures of Saddam Hussein. Just address the question of whether WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

The next question will be addressed in the next debate. "Was there molten steel?"

Once the question is settled, there is no going back and reusing the defeated argument.

As I have pointed out before, CTers are a lot like creationists. They throw out piles of crap, at least some of which is blatent distortion (and who knows about the rest), but which have to be refuted. Then throw out more questions. Make it look like they are the ones on the offensive, and that the CW is always being defensive, while never being able to actually produce a case of their own (because they are always having to correct misinformation). When it comes to providing evidence, skip the physics and spend time quote miniing from any source they can find.

If you make them address one single issue, it gets a lot harder because they don't "just have questions" any more. They actually have to provide evidence, which is still often quote mining, but at least on a given topic. Moreover, if it is not on the topic, you can dismiss it as irrelevent to the case at hand. Shoot, there could be a quote from a demolitions expert who claimed to have wired WTC1 and WTC2 with explosives, and it would not address the question of whether WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Cover the "controlled demolition of WTC1" to another day.

But in the end, leaving the topic completely general leads to an unproductive discussion of dodge and weave.

That's why when Roxdog kept asking for a live debate, I suggested: only if it was under formal rules of debate, with an independent moderator, and in a neutral setting. If you do it on their podcast, it whould become a shouting match. As most people know, being louder makes you right.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...I may leave this country in the fourth wave of people or stay to pick up the pieces, but it's not an out if I leave, it might be a break, a breather, a change, but there is no out. The planet is too small for there to be an out anywhere.
...snip...

*switches lurking mode off*
I can only hope that if he leaves, he will decide to immigrate to somewhere else than Brazil. Buy a house at Tehran, buddy...
*switches lurking mode on*

 

[geggy]

They interviewed people from the CIA, as well as other Gov't intelligence agencies, news services, and experts in the middle east, to get their stories. You then get a secondary source to confirm what they told you. That's called investigating.

Usually an investigator collects, looks at, and verifies all the available evidence, before they come to a theory of what may have happened. They do not come to a conclusion then look for evidence to fit that hypothosis, and ignore the facts that don't.

You need to understand how hierarchy pyramid of news agencies work. National geographics is one of the outlets that are on top of the pyramid. Others being cnn, fox, popular mechanics, Time, AP, etc who are affilitiated with the US government. The US government decides what information should be given to put themselves in a more favorable light. The top ranking individuals of each outlet's job is to keep every dissent in check to prevent from information that puts the US government in a darker light leaked to the public. The next level below of the hiercharcy pyramid gets their news from the level above. The pattern continues as information are passed to the next level below. Independent journalists who are neutral from the pyramid whereas the government has no control over, do as much research as national geographics journalists do and put out more broader and real information.

 

[pgwenthold]

That's why when Roxdog kept asking for a live debate, I suggested: only if it was under formal rules of debate, with an independent moderator, and in a neutral setting. If you do it on their podcast, it whould become a shouting match. As most people know, being louder makes you right.

Shoot, I don't even think there needs to be a neutral setting. The topic just has to be so narrowly defined that no one can flip to something unrelated.

 

[drkitten]

You need to understand how hierarchy pyramid of news agencies work. National geographics is one of the outlets that are on top of the pyramid. Others being cnn, fox, popular mechanics, Time, AP, etc who are affilitiated with the US government.

Er, no

The US government decides what information should be given to put themselves in a more favorable light.

Ever hear of the "Pentagon Papers"? This statement is not supported by history.

The top ranking individuals of each outlet's job is to keep every dissent in check to prevent from information that puts the US government in a darker light leaked to the public.

Er, no

The next level below of the hiercharcy pyramid gets their news from the level above. The pattern continues as information are passed to the next level below.

Er, no

Independent journalists who are neutral from the pyramid whereas the government has no control over, do as much research as national geographics journalists do and put out more broader and real information.

Er, no

 

[Shrinker]

You need to understand how hierarchy pyramid of news agencies work. National geographics is one of the outlets that are on top of the pyramid. Others being cnn, fox, popular mechanics, Time, AP, etc who are affilitiated with the US government. The US government decides what information should be given to put themselves in a more favorable light. The top ranking individuals of each outlet's job is to keep every dissent in check to prevent from information that puts the US government in a darker light leaked to the public. The next level below of the hiercharcy pyramid gets their news from the level above. The pattern continues as information are passed to the next level below. Independent journalists who are neutral from the pyramid whereas the government has no control over, do as much research as national geographics journalists do and put out more broader and real information.

Somebody here was wondering what you did for a living. I guess we can now rule out journalism, or anything related to the media.

 

[Belz...]

You noticed that nobody responded to your facts about freefall rates. These guys avoid or run away from genuine evidence like Superman from Kryptonite

How DARE you compare Superman to these guys ? Superman does NOT run from Kryptonite.

He confronts it. And dies.

 

[Belz...]

History is not what you think as it is in this excessively secretive world that we live in.

And yet YOU are so knowledgeable in history. How did you get all that information, anyway ? Not nearly secretive enough, it seems.