Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

bob_kark said:
Where have you posted any evidence that the US gave Iraq nerve gas?
Click to expand...
In the CT mind, someone misinterpreting an official article in a way to support their warrantless conclusions is the same as the official article stating those same conclusions.
 
jessicarabbit said:
So far he says the building damage wasnt that bad and he heard explosions as he ran from it. He was an NYPD officer. I believe him
Click to expand...

Actually he doesn't say he heard explosions himself, at least not at about 5:45. What he says is:

I don't know, but that didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did.
Click to expand...
 
One of a the sources in jesssica's 'evidence' is a book titled:
Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam’s War Machine (Oh yeah, ignore the Soviets, China, and France) is quoted as saying this:

…the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC (National Security Council) advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters, officially for crop spraying. It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village Halabja, which killed 5000 people
Click to expand...

Note that the 'it is believed' is unsourced in this article. However, as many small plane pilots pointed out in the months after 911, crop-spraying is a very poor way to distribute chemical weapons. The pilots get exposed, there's danger of crashing, and a host of other problems. Why do this when artillery shells full of nerve gas can do the job just as well and are a lot easier to handle.

Some of these 'sources' are pretty sorry looking.

And theres no evidence that the US supplied chemical weapons to Iraq.
 
I just think it's ironic that while the CTs accuse US of disregarding evidence that is contrary to our beliefs, spinning things to suit our theories, and not doing research, they are doing the exact same thing.

Is this some kind of 'do as I say, not as I do' thing? If you aren't already, you would make good parents ;)

Those accusations would of course carry more weight if you folks refrained from doing them yourselves.
 
twinstead said:
I just think it's ironic that while the CTs accuse US of disregarding evidence that is contrary to our beliefs, spinning things to suit our theories, and not doing research, they are doing the exact same thing.

Is this some kind of 'do as I say, not as I do' thing? If you aren't already, you would make good parents ;)

Those accusations would of course carry more weight if you folks refrained from doing them yourselves.
Click to expand...

I posted a video from fox news and immediately the spin went into action saying it had been faked. I have emailed fox so we will see.
 
kookbreaker said:
One of a the sources in jesssica's 'evidence' is [...]
Click to expand...
and it referes to Senator Riegle. His report can be found here. The hearing at the senate (Congressional Record (Senate) February 9, 1994) can be found at wikisource:

Donald Riegle said:
I wish to just show on the chart when these things were sent over to Iraq. I have listed each one that I just cited here in these blue boxes. Anthrax was shipped from the United States to Iraq back on May 2, 1986, and again in September 1988 - signed, sealed, delivered, and approved by our own Government, our own Department of Commerce.

Clostridium botulinum was shipped on May 22, 1986, and again in September 1988 from the United States to Iraq. Histoplasma capsulatum was shipped in February 1985 and went to the Ministry of Higher Education, so-called, in Iraq.

Clostridium perfringens was shipped in May 1986 and again in September 1988.

In addition, several shipments of E. Coli and genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, were shipped directly to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission.
Click to expand...
 
Childlike Empress said:
and it referes to Senator Riegle. His report can be found here. The hearing at the senate (Congressional Record (Senate) February 9, 1994) can be found at wikisource:
Click to expand...
link to a forum post that quotes a newspaper article that cites a books that references some other document

why cant CTers do their own research and post a primary source for once instead of making us go searching for it
 
Still no answer from you guys?

So, ten hours pass, three more pages are added, my question is asked again (thanks, WildCat), and the whole lot of you still can't answer.

This is why your stories are not convincing. If you refuse to explain even the simplest questions about it, it leads me to conclude that you're just having me on.

I'm just asking questions and demanding answers. Isn't that what you want?
 
jessicarabbit said:
I have emailed fox to see if that film is fake.
Click to expand...

Jessica you're wasting your time. Simply by mailing Fox you've done more to prove or disprove something than anyone else here has ever done. They have never and will never look into anything themselves. They will continue to spew the official lie as proof. Gravy himself typed up a 314 pg paper on WTC 7 that has none of his own work in it, just a parrot of what's out there already yet they'll ask you to prove your views with your evidence. Just give up Jessica. It's the best move. Why fight the straw man?? I ask about respect for NYFD they reply with the collapse of WTC7. Straw Man. You know where to find me Jessica. Have a good one.
 
Usual Suspect said:
Jessica you're wasting your time. Simply by mailing Fox you've done more to prove or disprove something than anyone else here has ever done. They have never and will never look into anything themselves. They will continue to spew the official lie as proof. Gravy himself typed up a 314 pg paper on WTC 7 that has none of his own work in it, just a parrot of what's out there already yet they'll ask you to prove your views with your evidence. Just give up Jessica. It's the best move. Why fight the straw man?? I ask about respect for NYFD they reply with the collapse of WTC7. Straw Man. You know where to find me Jessica. Have a good one.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here looks for people to supply evidence made by themselves. We look for plain evidence here.
 
Usual Suspect said:
Jessica you're wasting your time. Simply by mailing Fox you've done more to prove or disprove something than anyone else here has ever done. They have never and will never look into anything themselves. They will continue to spew the official lie as proof. Gravy himself typed up a 314 pg paper on WTC 7 that has none of his own work in it, just a parrot of what's out there already yet they'll ask you to prove your views with your evidence. Just give up Jessica. It's the best move. Why fight the straw man?? I ask about respect for NYFD they reply with the collapse of WTC7. Straw Man. You know where to find me Jessica. Have a good one.
Click to expand...

Yet you cannot refute ANY of Gravy's paper, nor can you in any rational way show how ANY of the official story is impossible, or as you say, a lie.

Gravy has done more research into 911 than you ever will. And yea, Jessica will know where to find you; a CT site where you are more comfortable preaching to the choir instead of answering the hard questions about your theory.

I say good riddance.
 
Usual Suspect said:
Jessica you're wasting your time. Simply by mailing Fox you've done more to prove or disprove something than anyone else here has ever done. They have never and will never look into anything themselves. They will continue to spew the official lie as proof. Gravy himself typed up a 314 pg paper on WTC 7 that has none of his own work in it, just a parrot of what's out there already yet they'll ask you to prove your views with your evidence. Just give up Jessica. It's the best move. Why fight the straw man?? I ask about respect for NYFD they reply with the collapse of WTC7. Straw Man. You know where to find me Jessica. Have a good one.
Click to expand...
Can you answer Mackey's question?
 
twinstead said:
Yet you cannot refute ANY of Gravy's paper.
Click to expand...

Sure I can. it's not Gravy's work. It's just someone else's copied.

twinstead said:
Gravy has done more research into 911 than you ever will. And yea, Jessica will know where to find you; a CT site where you are more comfortable preaching to the choir instead of answering the hard questions about your theory.

I say good riddance.
Click to expand...

Just retyping someone else work is not research and answering hard questions?? The first post was asking about respect and your boy Gravy did the Straw man and went into WTC7.

You say good riddance?? Did Gravy clear that line for ya??
 
Usual Suspect said:
Sure I can. it's not Gravy's work. It's just someone else's copied.



Just retyping someone else work is not research and answering hard questions?? The first post was asking about respect and your boy Gravy did the Straw man and went into WTC7.

You say good riddance?? Did Gravy clear that line for ya??
Click to expand...

Care to prove it?

Finding information and places where the information is IS research, and saying it isn't his work isn't refuting jack squat.
 
Garb said:
Care to prove it?

Finding information and places where the information is IS research, and saying it isn't his work isn't refuting jack squat.
Click to expand...
Correct. This is just another dodge, perhaps the silliest one yet.

Perhaps we should apply that standard to them? All of their arguments about "near free fall," the temperature and breaking energy of the WTC buildings, we should just throw out because they aren't structural engineers and haven't run their own billion-element FEA simulations...

The argument would be over right quick in that case. We have the overwhelming preponderance of scientists on our side.
 
Hawk one said:
What ridicule?

2: When there is a fire in a big building, lots of stuff found in there will go out with a bang. Soda boxes, spray cans, and plenty of other things.
Click to expand...

I don't think there were bombs in the towers, but I do think there is unanswered questions.

You seem to be implying that an exploding can of pop accounts for this eyewitness statement:

"We started walking down to the eighth floor. Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.eight.floor.big.explosion..wmv

And:

“[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street.”

Sue Keane, an officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department

Not to push the CT myself here, but this sounds a bit more powerful than a "spray can."
 
Dazed said:
Not to push the CT myself here, but this sounds a bit more powerful than a "spray can."
Click to expand...
Sounds like floors collapsing to me. A 110 story building going through its death throes isn't going to be a quiet or steady place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom