• 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.

Split Thread WTC7 is a problem for the 9/11 official story

RedIbis said:
The word you're looking for is impugn, not impinge. Weren't you the guy who was criticize my language skills?
Click to expand...

Nope twoof...
I was impunging your reading comprehension skills... not your spelling. vastly different isn't it twoof?

And twoof...(god I love OWNING you.)

ETA:
to IMPINGE
from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impinge
1. to make an impression; have an effect or impact (usually fol. by on or upon): to impinge upon the imagination; social pressures that impinge upon one's daily life.
2. to encroach; infringe (usually fol. by on or upon): to impinge on another's rights.
3. to strike; dash; collide (usually fol. by on, upon, or against): rays of light impinging on the eye.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
True. Everyone makes mistakes on here. It's just funny when someone will criticize as TL did only to make a mistake in nearly every post.
Click to expand...

Oh poor twoof.

did you or did you not say that TRI's story was "exposed as a fabrication" w/out having ANY such proof?

Did you then not try to dodge out of that 10 pages and 3 weeks after by stating that "exposed as a fabrication" means that you think it is BS?

Did you not just try to say that prosecutors DO NOT take victims desires into account when they are doing a plea bargain?

Have you not (on many occassions) stated there is no jet fuel in shanksville, so therefore there is no jet crash?

Have you not just tried to SLANDER another member (Tri who you LIED about) in ANOTHER thread from where you lied abou him?

Those are all your statements, and your actions... OWN them. Don't play stupid, and try to dodge out of it.

Of course I don't expect you to have the moral fortitude to answer ANY of these statements. So fly away widdle birdy. We already know how morally, intellectually and ethically bankrupt you are.
 
You know Red, you'd get a big boost in your weakened credibility if you stood up and told Bill his made-up theories are ludicrous. You can still do this and believe 911 was an inside job, so it's not like you have to change your world view or anything. Seriously. Bill is over the top with this stuff. Don't you remember when he suggested smoke generators were planted in WTC1 and 2 to make it seem like the fires were more widespread than they actually were? Come on.
 
RedIbis said:
You sound about 12.
Click to expand...

Oh... is that your reply?

Not to the substance of the post, but to call me juvenille? I only get that why when I am talking to a juvenille. You made the accusations, you need to OWN them.

I didn't outright LIE about a member here. I didn't then try to dodge and ignore the cries for an apology about LYING about a member.

I have in the past defended you.

I was not the one who for almost a month has been acting like a jerk and refusing to make a simple apology for lying about someone.

If you are not morally, ethically or intellectually bankrupt then I apologize. But your actions so far (in my year of lurking, and in my last 3 months of posting) do not support the idea that you have any morals, ethics or intellectually honest intentions.

So WERE YOU WRONG?
 
twinstead said:
You know Red, you'd get a big boost in your weakened credibility if you stood up and told Bill his made-up theories are ludicrous. You can still do this and believe 911 was an inside job, so it's not like you have to change your world view or anything. Seriously. Bill is over the top with this stuff. Don't you remember when he suggested smoke generators were planted in WTC1 and 2 to make it seem like the fires were more widespread than they actually were? Come on.
Click to expand...

I disagreed with Bill's speculations in post 140 and 177. I'm sorry if they don't conform to the type of shrill whining and namecalling that usually passes for discourse around here.
 
RedIbis said:
You sound about 12.
Click to expand...

And you act like a petulant 14 year old... so I guess I am talking down to you some. I'm ok with that. I figure to talk down to your level, I need to make it very simple.

You have called another member an OUTRIGHT LIAR w/out proof.

then you tried to derail this thread by coming to this thread and carrying ON YOUR BOORISH behavior.

So I call it like I see it.

Address the substance, offer an apology and have done with it.

act like a grown up, and maybe I'll treat you like one.
 
RedIbis said:
I disagreed with Bill's speculations in post 140 and 177. I'm sorry if they don't conform to the type of shrill whining and namecalling that usually passes for discourse around here.
Click to expand...

Well, Red, I must applaud you for not conforming to the type, being so civil and not making any childish remarks, oh wait........

RedIbis said:
You sound about 12.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should work on that one Red.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
Well, Red, I must applaud you for being so civil and not making any childish remarks, oh wait........

Maybe you should work on that one Red.
Click to expand...

S O G.

Maybe it is just days where he gets his head handed to him in three threads that he gets snippy. (or is that snooty Red? Since you are correcting my spelling, even though it was RIGHT).
 
twinstead said:
You know Red, you'd get a big boost in your weakened credibility if you stood up and told Bill his made-up theories are ludicrous. You can still do this and believe 911 was an inside job, so it's not like you have to change your world view or anything. Seriously. Bill is over the top with this stuff. Don't you remember when he suggested smoke generators were planted in WTC1 and 2 to make it seem like the fires were more widespread than they actually were? Come on.
Click to expand...

If you take WTC7 or instance and the film of it collapsing there seems to be no fire left coming out of the windows of the North side (which is the most common view). That would mean that the fires there had already burned out. Yet on the other or South side of the building gigantic palls of smoke were pumping (or being pumped) out of the building and were were rising skywards. It is interesting to note that this smoke was not shot through with slames and appearded to be absolutely uniform in colour and composition.

It is a pity ( or a coincidence) that it collapsed just as the light was bginning to fade because then we would have clearly seen if the smoke was being backlit by fires.

When a building has a serious fire the flames normally blaze out he indows. When that happens the smoke rises away from the top of the flames. The area where the slame is is clear to see with the smoke rising away from it.

I would swear that there were smoke-pots in WTC7.

(PS. If you search for smoke-pots you may get some unexpected returns)
 
Last edited:
I had to take my boots off out of fear my quaking would damage them. They're expensive boots!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom