• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

28th Kingdom said:
We invaded Iraq...because Iraq was connected to the war on terror, yes? Because they might of had WMD's or because Saddam had ties to al Qeada, right? Just yes or no, please.
Click to expand...
...and now he wants to change the subject

what happened to those passengers on the "drone" flights 28th?
 
full quote:

So...

a) Al Qaeda shot down flight 93
b) the USG attacked New York, the Pentagon, Madrid and the Mosul mess hall
c) Rumsfeld misspoke

Which is the most logical assumption 28th?
Click to expand...


28th Kingdom said:
The logical assumption is that NORAD shot down the plane over PENN. USG attacked NYC, Pentagon...and Rumsfield had a Freudian slip.
Click to expand...

I was going to post this as a sarcastic bit, but he beat me to it.....It's true, you really can't parody a CTist!
 
28th Kingdom said:
We invaded Iraq...because Iraq was connected to the war on terror, yes? Because they might of had WMD's or because Saddam had ties to al Qeada, right? Just yes or no, please.
Click to expand...

More self-debunking from 28th. Yes the WMDs, did the evil NWO forget to plant them or something? Like they forgot to make the hijackers identities Iraqi, like they forgot to fabricate evidence that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda? This stuff would be childsplay compared to 9/11. But I guess those master conspirators like looking like total idiotic morons.....

Do you see why we are telling you that this whole thing(like WTC7) makes no sense, whatsoever?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Actually, a little guy by the name of Donald Rumsfield...who had a small position called the Secretary of Defense during 9/11...is admitting in plain clear view, that flight 93 was shot down. He is the one who is saying people on flight 93 didn't bring it down like reported in the news. Am I really the one in denial here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYqLA4X6dQ4
Click to expand...

Yes you are, you sad pathetic troll.

This is the last post you will receive from me, for I have not time nor the patience to even bother myself with such a cretin as yourself.

28th believe what you want, I really could not care less. You are devoid of any rational thought and completely removed from reality. The sad part is you think you are smart and clever, you are clearly not.

You get off on it, thinking you have outsmarted the evil USG. The reality is you are nothing, nobody, you are insignificant. The same type of insignificant nobody that would crap his pants and cry like a baby if you ever had to face the terrors those on Flight 93 faced and over come.

Goodbye troll.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
red refers to al qaeda and green is a misstatement that should have been "brought"
Click to expand...

In 28th's mind it would be like this:

I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.
Click to expand...

Everything in blue is a lie, everything in red is true.

This is cherry picking to the extreme! :boggled:
 
apathoid said:
More self-debunking from 28th. Yes the WMDs, did the evil NWO forget to plant them or something? Like they forgot to make the hijackers identities Iraqi, like they forgot to fabricate evidence that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda? This stuff would be childsplay compared to 9/11. But I guess those master conspirators like looking like total idiotic morons.....

Do you see why we are telling you that this whole thing(like WTC7) makes no sense, whatsoever?
Click to expand...
its 28th favorite word, doublethink! the conspirators are the most brilliant morons ever to pull off a flawlessly executed plan full of holes and smoking guns
 
28th Kingdom said:
We invaded Iraq...because Iraq was connected to the war on terror, yes? Because they might of had WMD's or because Saddam had ties to al Qeada, right? Just yes or no, please.
Click to expand...

We got rid of Saddam because he was shooting at our airplanes for 11 years, he would not hold up his agreements with us, and he was dumb enough to pretend he had WMDs.

He shot at me many times, I would have taken him out in 1991 but my boss would not let me.

You are still very bad at research.

Look up all the good reasons to get rid of Saddam; try finding your this junk on your own.
 
28th Kingdom said:
"One of the hardest parts of my job is connecting Iraq to the war on terror."

--George Bush

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rETBYfeG9H0
Click to expand...
another gem of truth among nothing but lies?



you claim to be doing this out of respect for the victims of 9/11, well on the morning of september 11th 2001 246 people got on planes and never came home

according to you they were not on any of the planes that crashed (because it was unmanned drones that crashed) so they must have gone somewhere

their families all think they are dead, but they must not be victims because you wont answer a simple question about them (which you naturally would because you are here out of respect for the victims)
 
Pardalis said:
In 28th's mind it would be like this:

I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.
Click to expand...
Everything in blue is a lie, everything in red is true.

This is cherry picking to the extreme! :boggled:
Click to expand...

So, you're saying he thinks the plane was shot up? :boggled:
 
The Almond said:
Quoted in case 28th misses it. My experience, though, is that he will patently ignore valid, logical criticisms to his argument in favor of the simpler, "I can't believe you wrote that," statements. Here are just a few:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2163586&postcount=264
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2163882&postcount=332
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2164438&postcount=454
(this next one by sggw was completely ignored, despite having mathematical proof, and it's too bad he didn't come back and post a few more times.)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2165176&postcount=488
The great Architect's 1st post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2171999&postcount=544
Loss Leader follows up
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2172107&postcount=550
Architect again
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2172284&postcount=573
Maccy gets out the publications list and lays the science smack down
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2172681&postcount=681
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2172752&postcount=705
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2173042&postcount=743
Some of my stuff
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2173337&postcount=786
Horatius
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2173428&postcount=811
Maccy
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2174683&postcount=982
Me again
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2175011&postcount=1053
Architect, taking advantage of his free time
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2175038&postcount=1060

Ok, that was just the first half of this thread. 28th clearly is not interested in a point by point argument style, nor is he interested in addressing any criticisms to his argument.
Click to expand...


Any chance you're going to respond to any of this 28th?
 
28th Kingdom said:
The only math you need to do is figure out how much the lease cost Silverstein for WTC 1 & 2 - and then how much he received from the insurance claim. He profited over 3 billion dollars on one day. Who else in the world can say they made more money on 9/11 than Larry Silverstein?

Newsflash. At this point. Silverstein has 3 billion dollars. He's not obligated to rebuild anything...if he is rebuilding it's treated as a new business venture...that is to make him even more profit. People don't build buildings to lose money.
Click to expand...

Newsflash 28K!

The insurance required that any proceeds from the claim go towards rebuilding. He cannot pocket the money.

In fact, on WTC 7, the insurance companies made sure he rebuilt with at least the same square footage as the previous building.

Since he had to repay the previous mortgage on WTC 7, he lost money. The city of New York floated bonds to help rebuild. He has to pay back those bonds.

The Port Authority owned the twin towers and Silverstein had the lease and it was his responsibilty to insure. And, of course, the insurance had to go toward rebuilding them as well. And it was not enough. Some of the insurance companies had to pay for 2 incidents, and the others only had to pay for one incident.

Does this still sound like a profit to you?

He could have made millions in the last 5 years from the very profitable operation of the WTC complex.
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
There's your proof!! You just debunked yourself mary.

Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror therefore 9/11 could not have been an excuse to attack iraq.
Click to expand...

Finally...we agree on something. You're right 9/11 couldn't have been an excuse to invade Iraq. But, that's exactly what the government used it for. They used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq...because we were told that Iraq had WMDs and was connected to al Qaeda and the war on terror. What other reason could there have been to invade Iraq?

The USG told us unambiguously that OBL just attacked us...and then the government was like...naw, let's just leave that guy alone he's not the problem...he's just the one who killed 3000 of our people. Forget about that guy...let's go fight crime somewhere else. Iraq is a bigger threat to us than OBL...we should pour all of our troops in there.
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
Finally...we agree on something. You're right 9/11 couldn't have been an excuse to invade Iraq. But, that's exactly what the government used it for. They used 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq...because we were told that Iraq had WMDs and was connected to al Qaeda and the war on terror. What other reason could there have been to invade Iraq?

The USG told us unambiguously that OBL just attacked us...and then the government was like...naw, let's just leave that guy alone he's not the problem...he's just the one who killed 3000 of our people. Forget about that guy...let's go fight crime somewhere else. Iraq is bigger threat to us than OBL...we should pour all of our troops in there.
Click to expand...
and all this proves an inside job how?

but more importantly its showing respect for the victims ont he planes how?
 
28th Kingdom said:
The USG told us unambiguously that OBL just attacked us...and then the government was like...naw, let's just leave that guy alone he's not the problem...he's just the one who killed 3000 of our people. Forget about that guy...let's go fight crime somewhere else. Iraq is bigger threat to us than OBL...we should pour all of our troops in there.
Click to expand...

So if they ignored him what was the spot of bother in Afghanistan about then...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom