jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
I assume autocue = teleprompter for us Yanks.
This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!
- Thread starter 28th Kingdom
- Start date
So, wait... You say it is Saturday, then turn around and say it is Sunday. Typical denier doublespeak--you can't seriously expect anyone to take anything you say seriously now, you bald-faced liar!
Debunked!!!11!1!!
[/
]Welcome! Actually, I find your information very worthwhile--here, of course, Letterman does a similar bit with Bush's lack of verbal agility.
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
If you can dismiss clear video footage of an admission by Bush as to involved in 9/11 - than, you really shouldn't give any PETist a lick of attention, because you've already set up a belief system that is so completely absorbed in denial and doublethink...that no evidence or analysis will ever convince you that 9/11 is an inside job.
I knew this was the case...and that's why I asked for specific evidence that would make you believe it's an inside job...some of you said, a video tape with admissions would be good enough...and now, you just cast that aside...and said, oh please - that's not anything...just a little verbal diarrhea. Can you not see the massive mind control you are under? You will deny to no end....you will distort anything until it fits your preconceived notions...
I use to believe the official story, that's how I know I'm being objective and open to opposing viewpoints. I can't find a lick of evidence that suggests OBL is responsible for 9/11. Send me once piece of evidence, that is independent from Gov or media influence...and maybe I will reconsider my theory. You can't expect me to consider evidence presented by someone who I think is involved in the crime. Give me something truly independent. Anything...please...
I knew this was the case...and that's why I asked for specific evidence that would make you believe it's an inside job...some of you said, a video tape with admissions would be good enough...and now, you just cast that aside...and said, oh please - that's not anything...just a little verbal diarrhea. Can you not see the massive mind control you are under? You will deny to no end....you will distort anything until it fits your preconceived notions...
I use to believe the official story, that's how I know I'm being objective and open to opposing viewpoints. I can't find a lick of evidence that suggests OBL is responsible for 9/11. Send me once piece of evidence, that is independent from Gov or media influence...and maybe I will reconsider my theory. You can't expect me to consider evidence presented by someone who I think is involved in the crime. Give me something truly independent. Anything...please...
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Dude. You're a flaming ideologue, and we all know it. Stop with the "I'm being objective" crap, K?
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
supply such a video, i guarantee it wont be dismissed
you were given several answers as to what evidence would suffice, i myself said a clear video confession from any major players you say are involved would be dandy
independent of government or media influence? id have to hop a plane to the middle east and get somethign for you, and coming from me (or any JREFer) youd still claim its tainted
once again, you cant paint an entire industry with a single brush
and when somethign is independent and CTers dont like it they tend to invent some reason why it isnt independent, would you do the same? (since you consider media to be tainted when most outlets are independent i suspect you already have)
babazaroni
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 787
There is nothing truly independent. There are always ways to find some obscure connection and make it seem important.
We are not objective. We are unable to even see things that are absolutely clear.
Your mission is done here. Now report back to wherever you came from.
Last edited:
You read a book, and now everything is doublespeak, doublethink!
It is all independent, just check some of the posts you have never read.
The only liar on this thread is yourself. You have presented lies and no proof of your thermite cutter stuff.
So when is the big event, your forever changing argument? Where is the good stuff?
You must be doing this for entertainment; but you are just being disrespectful.
Last edited:
The Pig
Thinker
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 171
Evening 28th Kingdom.
How do you objectively know the difference between a mistake and doublethink?
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Does sworn testimony and evidence presented by the US Justice Dept to a supreme court and accepted by a jury as fact in the most important case this century count or is that all just a pack of lies as well ?
The sworn testimony is from the guy who planned 911, picked the targets and named it.His testimony can be found here.
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/
Try reading.
The Pig
Thinker
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 171
Also, how much time, effort and emotion did you have invested in the official line versus your current stance?
Why is it now our job to say what kind of evidence would convince us 9/11 was an in side job ( yeah riiight ), I thought YOU were going to change the way we looked at 9/11 forever?
What's stopping you? Post it allready.
JFM
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2006
- Messages
- 78
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
GGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHH
Sweet jebus, will this never end?
Surely the humane thing to do, is take this thread outside, and, err, do the humane thing.
This 28IQ troll is weak, could we have a new one please.
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAA
GGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHH
Sweet jebus, will this never end?
Surely the humane thing to do, is take this thread outside, and, err, do the humane thing.
This 28IQ troll is weak, could we have a new one please.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
That's giving him too much credit. He's more like the mouse that Mama cat plays with to teach the kittens how to hunt.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
And just to be clear, when we say "clear" we don't mean a single word misspoken in the middle of a paragraph, that has to be taken out of context and completely misinterpreted in order to claim it's "proof" of an inside job.
And by "confession", we mean something that actually points to them planning, permitting, or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Covering up incompetence, or exploiting 9/11 for their own cynical goals doesn't count.
On both these issues, both the Silverstein quote and the Rummy quote fail utterly.
valis
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 647
This may come as a shock to you and everyone else that uses that argument, be it about Bin Laden or Hussein. In fact maybe you had better sit down.
Countries tend to do what they feel is in their best interest at the time.
France does it, Zimbabwe does it and yes the USA does it.
Sometimes it later turns out you are wrong or circumstances have changed. When the guy you are backing is fighting the Soviets and you are concerned about Communism taking hold in the region, then that guy is your freedom fighter. Later when the Soviets are not a threat and you are worried about Islamic terror you change your mind about him.
It is sad and cynical but it is the way the world has always worked.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Hi 28th Kingdom,
Here's another link for you to ignore:
Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis (pdf)
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
babazaroni
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Messages
- 787
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
Let me clearly illustrate how all of you are engaging in Doublethink, and how this makes it impossible for me or anyone else to prove NIST's report is false.
When discussing the pouring molten metal in WTC 2, I scientifically proved why NIST is wrong in their assertions, that the molten material is a silvery molten aluminum mixed with burned organic material, like: furniture, carpet and computers. I showed how NIST themselves, are clearly engaging in Doublethink it order to make a possibility out of an impossibility.
All of you are engaging in Doublethink...by holding a belief that says NIST's report is completely true...while simultaneously having a belief that states that parts of NIST's report are patently false i.e. their claims of the max temp on the impact floors or the color of molten aluminum (silvery)
"...The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them ... to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
I proved why scientifically, the yellow-orange molten metal coming from WTC 2, could not have been either the aluminum from the planes or the steel from the building.
I stated the max temp on the impact floors was around 1000C, and NIST agrees with this. I said that steel has a melting point of about 1500C and NIST agrees with that. I said that aluminum, although it has a melting point around 660C, appears silvery when melted, and NIST agrees with that. I declared that the molten material pouring from WTC 2 has a yellow-orange glow...and NIST agrees with that. I claim there are only two likely things this molten metal can be (minus therma/ite) and that is steel from the tower, or aluminum from the plane, and NIST agrees with that.
Now that we're at a point where NIST cannot logically or scientifically explain why this molten aluminum is glowing an orange color...they slip out of reality and engage in pure Doublethink, in order to create a possibility (scientifically possible) out of an impossibility (scientifically impossible) NIST says that this flowing molten material has no visual indication (signs) that it is burning. Then NIST goes on to compare the color (visual sign) of this non-burning material to a material that is burning in a fireplace. They claim that this silvery molten aluminum is mixed with burned pieces of organic material, like: furniture, computers, carpet etc. and that these burned materials display an orange glow like something that is burning. Burned means that it's no longer burning...burned means it's black...burning would be the stage where it's glowing orange from the heat.
So, according to NIST...the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 gets its orange glow from combining silvery molten aluminum and black burned organic materials. This is what NIST is saying...and that is how I proved them scientifically wrong, by illuminating the fact that they (NIST) are clearly out of touch with reality.
If NIST isn't capable of explaining even the most basic of things i.e. the color of a molten liquid - without engaging in Doublethink - than that beautifully reflects their inability to explain (with reason and science) how the towers could have collapsed due to - plane impact + dislodged insulation + falling upper mass. If you can't add 2 + 2 ... than I think it's safe to conclude that you lack the required ability to calculate complex scientific equations.
NIST source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
When discussing the pouring molten metal in WTC 2, I scientifically proved why NIST is wrong in their assertions, that the molten material is a silvery molten aluminum mixed with burned organic material, like: furniture, carpet and computers. I showed how NIST themselves, are clearly engaging in Doublethink it order to make a possibility out of an impossibility.
All of you are engaging in Doublethink...by holding a belief that says NIST's report is completely true...while simultaneously having a belief that states that parts of NIST's report are patently false i.e. their claims of the max temp on the impact floors or the color of molten aluminum (silvery)
"...The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them ... to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
I proved why scientifically, the yellow-orange molten metal coming from WTC 2, could not have been either the aluminum from the planes or the steel from the building.
I stated the max temp on the impact floors was around 1000C, and NIST agrees with this. I said that steel has a melting point of about 1500C and NIST agrees with that. I said that aluminum, although it has a melting point around 660C, appears silvery when melted, and NIST agrees with that. I declared that the molten material pouring from WTC 2 has a yellow-orange glow...and NIST agrees with that. I claim there are only two likely things this molten metal can be (minus therma/ite) and that is steel from the tower, or aluminum from the plane, and NIST agrees with that.
Now that we're at a point where NIST cannot logically or scientifically explain why this molten aluminum is glowing an orange color...they slip out of reality and engage in pure Doublethink, in order to create a possibility (scientifically possible) out of an impossibility (scientifically impossible) NIST says that this flowing molten material has no visual indication (signs) that it is burning. Then NIST goes on to compare the color (visual sign) of this non-burning material to a material that is burning in a fireplace. They claim that this silvery molten aluminum is mixed with burned pieces of organic material, like: furniture, computers, carpet etc. and that these burned materials display an orange glow like something that is burning. Burned means that it's no longer burning...burned means it's black...burning would be the stage where it's glowing orange from the heat.
So, according to NIST...the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 gets its orange glow from combining silvery molten aluminum and black burned organic materials. This is what NIST is saying...and that is how I proved them scientifically wrong, by illuminating the fact that they (NIST) are clearly out of touch with reality.
If NIST isn't capable of explaining even the most basic of things i.e. the color of a molten liquid - without engaging in Doublethink - than that beautifully reflects their inability to explain (with reason and science) how the towers could have collapsed due to - plane impact + dislodged insulation + falling upper mass. If you can't add 2 + 2 ... than I think it's safe to conclude that you lack the required ability to calculate complex scientific equations.
NIST source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Last edited:
You lie, lie, lie and repeat yourself, you have done nothing but assert that everyone, but you is wrong. Oh, and spam the thread...
The only person out of touch with reality is you...
Last edited: