• 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.

[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
pomeroo said:
After almost seven hundred increasingly absurd posts, we are back to an observation made many years ago by one of my economics professors. He said that when you encounter someone who points to the blazing noonday sun and remarks on how bright the full moon is, you won't win an argument with that person.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, our young friend is baying at that sun!
 
Malcolm is like ACE Baker and Pdoh all wrapped into one package. He has the insaneness of ACE, with the mean/sourpuss streak of PDoh...makes for an interesting and entertaining 18 pages...

Okay, I know you will likely say it is up to the rest of the world to prove their case, but I am asking you now, Malcolm, show us one shred of vetted evidence that any of the BS you have provided here is true.

Thanks in advance

TAM:)
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Show me a jap kamikaze that got through a carrier deck (they were all made of wood) and I'll agree that half the hijackers are not still alive.
Click to expand...

Well that's a faire trade, I guess. It's a good thing, though, that this is not how investigations work!

I said 175 didn't hit the south tower, which it didn't.
Click to expand...

Funny, 'cause lots of people saw it hit.

Consulting mental health professionals is something you mugs have been fooled into doing. Psychologists are second only to psychiatrists in the suicide ratings for professionals.
Click to expand...

:boggled:

Who am I, the man with all the answers?
Click to expand...

You seem to think so.

Why couldn't the 175 passengers and crew been herded on to a remote controlled plane and flown off to somewhere like The Bering Sea?
Click to expand...

Ah! good. A theory. Evidence ?

What happens if the passengers don't co-operate?
Click to expand...

They die. Or at least that's what they thought, which is why they used to cooperate. I surmise this'll be different in the future.
 
STOP!

Guys, if I wanted to stir up this forum like a beehive, I would:
  • Make unsubstantiated assertions
  • Drag out old CT chestnuts (pods etc.)
  • Mention loony ideas such as pedophilia rings
  • Avoid responding to others, just keep making assertions
  • Avoid the productive method of discussing one issue at a time by scatter-shooting a whole array of claims, to keep from getting pinned on any point. As a matter of fact, start with a large number of claims in your very first post.

Now, how many of these has Mr Kirkman done? Who thinks he's here to sincerely have a discussion?

My suggestion is for the whole group to refuse to participate in his little game. If we have a discussion with him, let's take one point at a time, and don't let him change the subject until that point is done. This will take some discipline, but otherwise I think we're in for a thread that's Christophera squared.
 
CurtC said:
STOP!

Guys, if I wanted to stir up this forum like a beehive, I would:
  • Make unsubstantiated assertions
  • Drag out old CT chestnuts (pods etc.)
  • Mention loony ideas such as pedophilia rings
  • Avoid responding to others, just keep making assertions
  • Avoid the productive method of discussing one issue at a time by scatter-shooting a whole array of claims, to keep from getting pinned on any point. As a matter of fact, start with a large number of claims in your very first post.
Now, how many of these has Mr Kirkman done? Who thinks he's here to sincerely have a discussion?

My suggestion is for the whole group to refuse to participate in his little game. If we have a discussion with him, let's take one point at a time, and don't let him change the subject until that point is done. This will take some discipline, but otherwise I think we're in for a thread that's Christophera squared.
Click to expand...
But he's fun to play with! He's so cute, and furry, with those baggy eyes!

And how did you get my photo for your avatar?
 
Z said:
You're obviously not particularly bright. There have been incidences of pine needles penetrating steel beams during tornados, for example. And damage effects of high-speed impacts of vehicles on various substances has been tested... one of the findings is that a construction of steel and glass fares far worse in a direct side-impact than a construction of concrete or stone.

So even a fiberglass or wood structure, flying at 400+ mph, has the power to penetrate something like the rather thin facade of the Twin Towers; and once even a small part of the plane penetrated, whether through the glass or by disruption of the steel work itself, kinetic energy would propel tons of matter and huge amounts of energy through the penetration point and into the relatively sparse interior, causing further structural damage.

But I'm not expecting much from you, who apparently have no life experience or education, and are not even experienced in discussing these issues in any depth at all. (Otherwise, you'd not bring up the long-since dismissed 'pod' idea)

In fact, I expect you'll not even live up to your agreement. You were shown a deck impact hole from a kamikaze pilot's attack... now will you agree that none of the 19 hijackers are still alive (nor were immediately after 9/11)?

BTW, that's another old canard of the CT crowd long ago put to rest...
Click to expand...

Pine needles penetrate steel do they?
Fibreglass or wood travelling at 400mph will penetrate steel.
There are none as numb as those that wanna be.
You certainly fit that bill.
 
pomeroo said:
No, there were NO pre-planted explosives involved. That is the opinion of EVERY DEMOLITION EXPERT IN THE WORLD AND IT IS SUPPORTED BY SEISMIC DATA COMPILED BY THE LAMONT-DOHERTY LABS.
Click to expand...
The Lamont-Doherty Labs, eh. That sounds really impressive. Who paid for that set up, Lucky Larry or Rockerfeller using your income tax money.:)
 
malcolm kirkman said:
The Lamont-Doherty Labs, eh. That sounds really impressive. Who paid for that set up, Lucky Larry or Rockerfeller using your income tax money.:)
Click to expand...

hmmm. If I were to guarantee to never loose a debate (in my mind at least), I would resort to the tried-and-true technique of countering every bit of evidence that could possibly be contrary to my theory with "it could have been faked" or "it could have been set up".

I would need no evidence that it actually was of course, but that's why it would only be winning the debate in my mind.

Oh. Wait. Never mind.
 
CurtC said:
STOP!

Guys, if I wanted to stir up this forum like a beehive, I would:
  • Make unsubstantiated assertions
  • Drag out old CT chestnuts (pods etc.)
  • Mention loony ideas such as pedophilia rings
  • Avoid responding to others, just keep making assertions
  • Avoid the productive method of discussing one issue at a time by scatter-shooting a whole array of claims, to keep from getting pinned on any point. As a matter of fact, start with a large number of claims in your very first post.

Now, how many of these has Mr Kirkman done? Who thinks he's here to sincerely have a discussion?

My suggestion is for the whole group to refuse to participate in his little game. If we have a discussion with him, let's take one point at a time, and don't let him change the subject until that point is done. This will take some discipline, but otherwise I think we're in for a thread that's Christophera squared.
Click to expand...

Just the one obvious claim.
175 did not hit the south tower.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
The Lamont-Doherty Labs, eh. That sounds really impressive. Who paid for that set up, Lucky Larry or Rockerfeller using your income tax money.:)
Click to expand...

I have no idea, but if I had to take a wild guess, I'd say the Lamont-Doherty Labs were most likely funded by people named Lamont and/or Doherty.

And I can't think of a better use for my tax money than funding labs and instrumentation for studying earthquakes and other seismic phenomena.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
twinstead said:
hmmm. If I were to guarantee to never loose a debate (in my mind at least), I would resort to the tried-and-true technique of countering every bit of evidence that could possibly be contrary to my theory with "it could have been faked" or "it could have been set up".

I would need no evidence that it actually was of course, but that's why it would only be winning the debate in my mind.

Oh. Wait. Never mind.
Click to expand...

A 57 storey skyscraper dropped like a shot cow.
What more evidence do you need.
Maybe WTC7 came down in sympathy ,eh.
 
Myriad said:
I have no idea, but if I had to take a wild guess, I'd say the Lamont-Doherty Labs were most likely funded by people named Lamont and/or Doherty.

And I can't think of a better use for my tax money than funding labs and instrumentation for studying earthquakes and other seismic phenomena.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...
I've got it.
The Council on Foreign Relations, is funded by foreigners.
I understand now. Thanks for that.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
I've got it.
The Council on Foreign Relations, is funded by foreigners.
Click to expand...


What an absurd idea. Obviously, it's funded by the relations of foreigners -- their aunts and uncles, cousings, siblings, grandparents, etc. Can't you read?

I understand now. Thanks for that.
Click to expand...


You're welcome. Improving your understanding is the only reward I ask for.

Respectfully,
Myriad

ETA: Apparently my original wild guess about Lamont-Doherty is correct, at least as far as its foundational funding is concernced. From Wikipedia:

LDEO is situated on a property overlooking the Hudson River in Palisades, New York, which was once the weekend residence of banker Thomas W. Lamont, known as "Torrey Cliff." His widow, Florence Haskell (Corliss) Lamont (1873-1952), gave the property to the University. In 1969, the Observatory was renamed "Lamont-Doherty" following a significant gift from the Henry L. and Grace Doherty Charitable Foundation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I personally get my pay from the Canadian arm of the evil NWO...and I like it...I like it alot...lol

TAM:)
 
You're back! You just missed seeing me, didn't you? You look so cute in those bunny jammies, too!
I think we should be best friends from now on. With you being so super-smart, and good looking, you could teach me all kinds of things. Like how to be afraid of the big, scary Rockefellers, and how to keep Rumsfeld from touching me where he shouldn't.
So, how about it? Can I curl up in your lap while you tell me some more stories, Unka Malcolm?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom