[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
pomeroo said:
You are lying again. American has NEVER stolen the oil of any nation. We pay through the nose for oil.

Other America-hating liars falsely claimed in 1991 that our intention was steal Iraqi oil. They have never apologized for their dishonest slander. Instead, they renewed it and were proved wrong again.


Yes, the Iranians want nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes, no doubt.


Wow! The mythical "Banksters" are simultaneously evil Jooos and fascists. Not bad, Malcolm. Not bad for a guy who welshed on a debt.
Click to expand...
I forgot the most important priority of all, the FED.
The Federal Reserve Bank that isn't federal, has no reserves and isn't a bank.
That unconstitutional monstrosity needs to be vapourised as a matter of utmost priority.
With regard to the Iranians, you prove to me that they want nuclear weapons for non peaceful purposes and even if they wanted their own nuclear deterent - so what?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
VespaGuy said:
Congratulations! Now lots of people know that you get almost everything wrong, and that you lied about donating money to charity.
Click to expand...

They're also a bit more clued up on the truth of 9/11.
The inside job that murdered innocent office workers going about their daily work. The more than 1,000 vapourised bodies of which no trace has been found.
The sweeping up of the crime scene (itself a crime) by Ghouliani himself. A Bankster lackey who is now running for president.
Anybody thinking of voting for that cross dresser should check out what the FDNY think of him.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
They're also a bit more clued up on the truth of 9/11.
Click to expand...
Yep, we are certainly "clued up" on the false claims of the "Truth Movement."
The inside job that murdered innocent office workers going about their daily work.
Click to expand...
Inside of Al Qaeda, that is.
The more than 1,000 vapourised bodies of which no trace has been found.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about vaporized? Try crushed by 1,000,000 tons of debris.
The sweeping up of the crime scene (itself a crime) by Ghouliani himself.
Click to expand...
You mean the 8 months of cleanup? Yeah, that was quick. :boggled:
 
malcolm kirkman said:
They're also a bit more clued up on the truth of 9/11.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

All of the nonsense you've spouted has been shown to be incorrect, misunderstandings or outright lies. Anyone reading this thread is sure to know a bit more about what truly happened. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't involve any grand conspiracies.

You've been corrected about everything Malcolm. Everything, from physics to grammar. Yet, you still posture as if you're 'winning' something, as if you somehow are making a difference. You refer to the page views as if this is some victory for you, but it only shows that lots of folks have been witness to your list of fallacies, mistakes, and lies.

Considering how well you play the roll of the 'truther', the ridiculous of your theories, and the pretentiousness that you attempt to display in the face of humiliation, I still wonder if "Malcolm" isn't just a brilliant parody of a truther, or perhaps more believably, simply a child having some fun. I just have too much difficulty believing that a person this dishonest, this ingorant of information, and this blind to how foolish he looks could actually exist.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
I refer you to my previous post on this matter.
Aren't posters expected to read other posts besides their own?
Click to expand...

malcolm kirkman said:
snip...It just struck me that Whackjob is so thick, that someone else came up with the idea of having him talk to kindergarten kids because that's about his level. I was right there.
I just went a bit too far, in presuming that 9/11 was the first time to have him in with the 'little innocents'.
Click to expand...
So you made it up? That doesn't help your credibility as a researcher. Since members were able to disprove your assumption in a mater of minutes, it further proves how close-minded you are.
I could say consider my phraseology as a figure of speech, which is partially true.
Click to expand...
I can't say I've ever used the "figure of speech," "I'll donate 1,000 dollars to any charity of your choice, if you can find one occassion before 9/11 when whackjob, as POTUS, spent some time in a kindergarten with the little ones."
The rest of it is that I have decided that $1,000 is a nice holiday for us and that is where the dosh will go.
Click to expand...
Which is an indication of how selfless you are.
I will be less cavalier in future.
Click to expand...
Start with being honest, especially with yourself.
 
lapman said:
Yep, we are certainly "clued up" on the false claims of the "Truth Movement."

Inside of Al Qaeda, that is.

Who said anything about vaporized? Try crushed by 1,000,000 tons of debris.

You mean the 8 months of cleanup? Yeah, that was quick. :boggled:
Click to expand...
TRUTH being the operative word.
 
CptColumbo said:
So you made it up? That doesn't help your credibility as a researcher. Since members were able to disprove your assumption in a mater of minutes, it further proves how close-minded you are.

I can't say I've ever used the "figure of speech," "I'll donate 1,000 dollars to any charity of your choice, if you can find one occassion before 9/11 when whackjob, as POTUS, spent some time in a kindergarten with the little ones."

Which is an indication of how selfless you are.

Start with being honest, especially with yourself.
Click to expand...
You mean like finding nothing wrong when the first passer by the MSM finds on 9/11 says,
"Then I saw the towers collapse, mainly due to structural failure, because the fires were just so intense".
Or would it be the FDNY officer high in tower 2, who said they could knock the fire out with just two lines.
Which is it to be?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Makes you wonder where all the views have come from eh?
Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak for others, but I've had to clock up a lot of views just trying to keep up with the train wreck which is Malcolm's attempt at arguing his case. And so often when I do catch up I find that others have nailed him to the floor before I can get a word in edgeways.

One thing has struck me quite forcefully - his extreme reluctance to find anything out for himself. This is seen often in simple little questions like "OP???" He doesn't realise that OP stands for "opening post", and rather than work it out for himself or find out some other way, he simply asks. Some of these queries have been so naive as to mark him out as an extreme newbie in any discussion thread. The habit would be endearing in anyone with even a tiny scrap of humility, but combined with Malcolm's extreme arrogance it merely points up his laziness.

This has extended several times to outright requests to posters knowledgeable about aviation and related matters to supply him with information he thinks he needs or wants to support his case. Which again is jawdroppingly naive. Obviously, if even a tiny part of the reply seems to favour his fantasy world, he trumperts that the knowledgeable poster is agreeing with him, but there's still zero chance that he'll take on board any information which doesn't suit him, no matter how expert the informant.

The now-infamous assertion that Dubya had never before staged a photo-op with a primary school class is just an extreme example. He was guessing. He had no idea. But a flashy offer to donate to charity soon had others finding his information for him. Of course, no donation. But if there had been no evidence of a prior visit, then something else for Malcolm to load on his house of cards, for virtually no effort on his part.

If the reneging on the donation shows nothing else, it shows that he was lying about being "loaded", and having a "lorra dosh" or "loadsa dosh", I forget now which he decided was the correct usage. (Hah, Malcolm and correct usage - now there's another whole barrel of laughs!) I wouldn't describe my finances in the above terms, but I've given that amount to charity on a number of occasions - £1,000 (pounds not dollars) on one occasion. If Malcolm were really so rich, such a donation would be small change.

I have to say I do wonder about the genuineness of a poster who manages to be so wrong about virtually everything, so consistently. Ordinary chance would suggest anyone just guessing would be right more often than he is! However, speculating on his trollishness is liable to get this post edited, so I won't. Whichever way, the spectacle is certainly entertaining!

The main point I's like to come back to is the one about the inability of fire to heat steel to the point where it will bend. Did Malcolm ever take on board the points about forging swords and so on? If fire doesn't heat steel to the point where it will bend under pressure, how did the mediaeval smiths make these masterly weapons, Malcolm?

Closer to home - I suppose I didn't see the local blacksmith take a srtaight bar of cold steel and heat it in the fire of his forge so that he could easily bend it into a shoe for my pony? I mean, a fire can't heat steel to the point where an old man could bend it just by banging it with a hammer, obviously. So I must have imagined it. I wonder where my pony got his shoes from, then?

Rolfe.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Malcolm, now that you have conclusively demonstrated your dishonesty and intellectual laziness, I think this would be a good time to revisit you original claims.




Presumably you meant to write "flew by remote control." This has been conclusively refuted; the Spiegel article is simply wrong.




Even granting for the sake of argument that this is true, the point is moot due to the refutation of the previous point.




Also moot due to point 1, but even if it were not, carrying passengers aboard a 787 is currently illegal, yet you'll see Boeing make many 787 flights in the next several months.




Here is a link to the Federal Aviation Administration regulations governing the operation of airlines carrying more than 10 passengers per aircraft (14 CFR Part 121). This version was current as of 1999. Please indicated the section where flight crew members are required to present themselves to passengers by standing at "the" door.




Questionable, but in any case a moot point, as the flights were not remote-controlled.




According to airport information from airnav.com, Offutt's average air traffic is 168 flights a day, all military. Please provide evidence that there was any civilian use of Offutt's air facilities on or near September 11, 2001.




In what capacity? Did they have maintenance technicians at the base? Maintenance or testing facilities? Please elaborate. Also, Raytheon's presence is moot, again due to point 1.




The only two I could find related to alleged anticompetitive practices in bidding on contracts to launch US Air Force satellites. One was dismissed; Boeing was sanctioned by the Air Force for the other. The RICO statute, though intended to combat organized crime, has some ambiguous provisions that have resulted in its attempted application to some large businesses that no reasonable person would consider to be criminal enterprises, including Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Lockheed Martin, Atlantic Records, Microsoft, and Major League Baseball. Are they all in on the conspiracy, too?




I imagine this is a minor consideration, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument. However, it's a moot point, as will be shown.




Uninformed speculation. Further, what about a base commander "who closed his [or her] airport" during important war games in order to prepare for a possible emergency landing by a stricken civilian airliner? Would that commander face disciplinary action? According to your statement, he or she would.




Cheney was not "in direct command of Norad [sic]" on September 11, 2001, or at any other time. See here. However, this is also a moot point, as Cheney still could have issued orders to NORAD in his capacity as Vice President.




A compelling reason such as "that's when the plane is supposed to take off?"




Do you have any evidence that these jets actually landed at Offutt, rather than Omaha's Eppley Airfield, which is only 11 miles away, and where Warren Buffett's jet fleet was based? Further, even if this did happen, what evidence do you have that the airport was closed to military flights at any point?




Buffett had hosted the tournament every year for the previous several years. Please provide evidence that he was "persuaded out of retirement," rather than 2001's just being the last year he planned to participate.




Libelous and irrelevant.




True, but irrelevant.




This is at best debatable, but in any case irrelevant.




Again, please provide evidence that any civilian aircraft landed at Offutt on September 11, 2001. But even if true, this is irrelevant.




Air traffic was normal for the date and time of day.




Patently false, and also irrelevant, except insofar as it serves further to illustrate your gross ignorance of aviation.




Yet again, please provide evidence that any civilian aircraft landed at Offutt on September 11, 2001, and also any evidence that the airport was closed to military traffic at any time that day.
Click to expand...

Warren Buffet,
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/smilinks/buffet.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_052603_buffett.html
Plenty more where this came from.
 
Hey, Malcolm, you really owe it to yourself to look at the photo in the thread, Debunking "Physics by Experts." It's post #164.

Pretty spectacular, huh? Now, we know that your immediate impulse is to fire off some new nonsense, but try a new approach. Pause for a moment. Take a deep breath. Look at that photo again. Seriously, you must begin to suspect that something is wrong with your fantasies.

The plane should have bounced off???
 
malcolm kirkman said:
You mean like finding nothing wrong when the first passer by the MSM finds on 9/11 says,
"Then I saw the towers collapse, mainly due to structural failure, because the fires were just so intense".
Or would it be the FDNY officer high in tower 2, who said they could knock the fire out with just two lines.
Which is it to be?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with your proven dishonesty? Except to show that you know nothing about those quotes.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
You mean like finding nothing wrong when the first passer by the MSM finds on 9/11 says,
"Then I saw the towers collapse, mainly due to structural failure, because the fires were just so intense".
Or would it be the FDNY officer high in tower 2, who said they could knock the fire out with just two lines.
Which is it to be?
Click to expand...
Neither. The subjective assessement of some passer by is uninteresting, and the FDNY officer could only assess what fires he could observe from the inside, which were on the lowest affected floor. He couldn't possibly know what it looked like on higher floors.

It is notable, however, that they didn't GET those lines up there. The fires burned on unchecked.

Hans
 
Arus808 said:
that isnt proof
Click to expand...
it's infinitely more than anything you've shown me to indicate that the planethat hit tower 2 was flight 175.
In fact, in over two thousand posts nobody has produced one scintila of evidence showing 175 as the plane that hit tower two.
Any one photo on this one web page alone screams controlled demolition.
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/
This thread has gone beyond me talking to true patriots who can't bring themselves to believe their government did it and who are not fully au fait.
That reason has gone, some time ago really.
All that is now left for me to deal with is a hardcore of neocon supporters.
I leep telling you, the net is closing.
 
VespaGuy said:
Congratulations! Now lots of people know that you get almost everything wrong, and that you lied about donating money to charity.
Click to expand...

I didn't lie. I changed my mind, so what?
My bride changes her mind forty times a day, or is it 41?
 
VespaGuy said:
Agreed.

All of the nonsense you've spouted has been shown to be incorrect, misunderstandings or outright lies. Anyone reading this thread is sure to know a bit more about what truly happened. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't involve any grand conspiracies.

You've been corrected about everything Malcolm. Everything, from physics to grammar. Yet, you still posture as if you're 'winning' something, as if you somehow are making a difference. You refer to the page views as if this is some victory for you, but it only shows that lots of folks have been witness to your list of fallacies, mistakes, and lies.

Considering how well you play the roll of the 'truther', the ridiculous of your theories, and the pretentiousness that you attempt to display in the face of humiliation, I still wonder if "Malcolm" isn't just a brilliant parody of a truther, or perhaps more believably, simply a child having some fun. I just have too much difficulty believing that a person this dishonest, this ingorant of information, and this blind to how foolish he looks could actually exist.
Click to expand...

Pull my finger.
There is nothing 'grand' about elements within a government conspiring to and then actually murdering their own citizens, watching them go to work inside a primed ready to explode giant bomb, locking the doors to the roof, turning off the sprinklers and allowing hundreds of firemen and police to go to their deaths in a vain rescue attempt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom