Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

Russell, for your research:

When were the towers rigged?

How were the towers rigged?

By whom were the towers rigged?

What explosives were used?

How much people were involved?

How much time did it take?
 
Russell, Im only trying to help you here, to get your research as accurate and complete as you want it to be.
 
LashL said:
The context.

It's when you read the whole thing that it's hard to avoid realizing that his story is pretty tenuous.

Oh, and I'm shocked that you missed the part where the radios exploded since you are so keen on the word.
Click to expand...

Face it - anybody who has said anything in support of a theory you don't believe is tenuous or a kook.

Is kook a scientific word?
 
I too now want to get to the bottom of this Russell.

If there were controlled demolitions in the WTC towers, then that means that there are hundreds of people out there that haven't been arrested and charged for these crimes.

Russell, I'm with you on this.
 
Pardalis said:
OH YEAH?! My daddy can kick your dad's butt even harder!
Click to expand...
Feh. My daddy and MOLOCH will kick all your daddy's asses!

8790452f4b468d46a.jpg

​
 
Pardalis said:
I too now want to get to the bottom of this Russell.

If there were controlled demolitions in the WTC towers, then that means that there are hundreds of people out there that haven't been arrested and charged for these crimes.

Russell, I'm with you on this.
Click to expand...

Deadpan humor is my favorite!
 
Russell Pickering said:
I wonder if they pulled them out of their pockets first?
Click to expand...

Nice attempt at deflection, but perhaps you can ask Mr. Bartmer about that.

In the meantime, do you not acknowledge that when you read his words about WTC7 in their entirety that it paints an entirely different picture than the one that you were attempting to present in your grossly abbreviated version (that you still managed to misquote, btw)?

As you know, I'm a lawyer. It matters what people say in the entirety of their testimony, not just in the parts that fit my client's preferred take on them. While I may, in closing argument, emphasize the parts that support my client's position, only a foolish lawyer would ignore the parts that do not support the client's position.

Similarly, it matters what people say in the entirety of their "interviews" on the subject of 9/11. Not just the parts that you happen to like. Context and perspective matter. A lot.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Deadpan humor is my favorite!
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't kidding Russ. If you believe theses towers were brought down by controlled demolitions, then that means controlled demolition people rigged these buildings to implode.

I too want to get these people.

No sarcasm.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Face it - anybody who has said anything in support of a theory you don't believe is tenuous or a kook.
Click to expand...

Scientists do not "believe" in a theory. They accept it.

Someone who does not agree with the accepted theory must provide either:

a) Proof that the accepted theory is wrong. or;
b) A better theory, and evidence of why it is better.

You and your cohorts have done neither.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Face it - anybody who has said anything in support of a theory you don't believe is tenuous or a kook.
Click to expand...

That's not true and you have no basis upon which to make such a broad, widesweeping claim. This isn't about what I "believe" in the way you use the term. I don't think I've ever called someone a "kook" either, btw, although I suppose it's possible.

But as the diligent researcher that you are, presumably your facts and evidence to back up your claims will be presented forthwith. I'll wait.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Nice attempt at deflection, but perhaps you can ask Mr. Bartmer about that.

In the meantime, do you not acknowledge that when you read his words about WTC7 in their entirety that it paints an entirely different picture than the one that you were attempting to present in your grossly abbreviated version (that you still managed to misquote, btw)?

As you know, I'm a lawyer. It matters what people say in the entirety of their testimony, not just in the parts that fit my client's preferred take on them. While I may, in closing argument, emphasize the parts that support my client's position, only a foolish lawyer would ignore the parts that do not support the client's position.

Similarly, it matters what people say in the entirety of their "interviews" on the subject of 9/11. Not just the parts that you happen to like. Context and perspective matter. A lot.
Click to expand...

Here is the original response from another thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2048928&postcount=112

I have a GED.

Yes - it is different if you want the context to find reasons to discredit him I agree.

But if you just want the words he said about WTC 7 my version was just fine.
 
LashL said:
That's not true and you have no basis upon which to make such a broad, widesweeping claim.

But as the diligent researcher that you are, presumably your facts and evidence to back up your claim will be forthcoming?
Click to expand...

My fault.

I was generically using "you" as a JREFer.

I apologize.

EDIT: Did you remember using the word kook?
 
Pardalis said:
I don't even knw what kook means.
Click to expand...

Check this:

* Abraham Isaac Kook, Chief Rabbi in the British Mandate of Palestine, considered to be Israel's first Chief Rabbi.
* Zvi Yehuda Kook, son of the above, prominent Religious Zionist rabbi.
* Hillel Kook, nephew of Abraham Isaac Kook, prominent Revisionist Zionism activist during World War Two.
* Kook, in skateboarding, a beginner skateboarder
* Kook, in surfing, an unskilled surfer
* Kook, in Yiddish, means "look"
* A pejorative term for someone; a crank.
* net.kook, a crank found on Usenet newsgroups.
* The Kooks, a British indie band.
* Kooks, a 1971 David Bowie song.
Click to expand...


That settles it. 9/11 was an inside job.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom