tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
The red sentence and the green one do not belong together.
Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous and are a Threat against george bush
- Thread starter walkyrie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- russia today
The red sentence and the green one do not belong together.
Then it's all about quote mining? Care to exemplify any further?
240-185
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 510
What he wants to show is that, as the main arguments from truthers are based from these quotations, making them upon truncated ones is at least making lies.
If you think it is sloppy then fine. Take it up with its authors. Why do you need our opinion?
The OP simply points to stuff that has been rehashed time and time again. It is posted to get a rise. To get a response. To get some attention. 911 TM is all about individual attention and book/dvd sales. It is about convincing gullible conspiracy junkies to spread the word and in doing so buying more books/dvds. How many have you bought or borrowed? When is the next reprint due?
The links that the OP points too have been plagurised by so many idiots that they themselves are confused as to what they believe. They all quote/misquote from the same pile of crap that was fed to you by a handfull of money grabbing fools in 2002. They fooled you and continue to do so.
It really doesnt matter what i think about the commission report. 19 terrorists did it. Their bosses admit it. Terrorists around the world continue to admit it and glorify it. They honour those that did it. They throw parties on its anniversary.
Well I like to know other's opinions about it. I think this is a good forum with lots of good credentials. Can I? It shows that I value them. If I simply wanted to "master bate" myself over the truther ideas on and on without wanting to know about the controvery, I would be doing that over truther forums, still, here I am, and never registered at any truther forums. That explains it I hope.
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,810
Lol did I say he said that? I asked for his opinion, I think he's a good poster. Did I commit any crime? Ah I know, the old repression and name calling against whoever is "JAQing".
And may I ask for you to present a case in which I put words in other's mouth?
You inferred by asking such a question that his words meant he wholeheartedly endorsed the 9/11 Commission Report, which is something Dave never said or implied in any of his postings. Read Dave's posts again, and then read your own words; you'll likely see what I mean.
For the record, most of us here have acknowledged the problems in the 9/11 Commission report and agree with the heads of the 9/11 Commission that the report is at least partially inaccurate. But partially inaccurate in a few small areas (i.e. the panels reaching the ground in less than 10 seconds claim) are irrelevant to the ultimate conclusion of the report, supported by mountains of evidence, which is that 19 Arabs hijacked 4 planes and flew them into three buildings and a field in Shanksville, PA.
As to another example of you putting words into others mouths, you have accused me more than once of being biased as regards my feelings toward Korey Rowe, and have said that I hate him. News flash; I don't hate him. You have accused other military members and even ElMondoHummus of the same emotion. News flash; they don't hate him either. What we dislike is that he is attempting to use his military experience to set himself up as some sort of expert when in fact he is a disgrace to the uniform and totally misrepresents the seven Army Values on a regular basis. I listed them in the other thread if you're curious. But to be fair, the last part of my post, "as per usual", was actually referring to how many truthers react to quite a few of the postings here and was not meant to refer to you in particular. So I apologize for the inference there.
I appologize if that's what it's what you or him or jackanory understood, I wasn't backfiring him with a silly question. You need to know me better as to see I'm not here to deliberately avoid reasoning and to fight the skeptics on 911 truth.
And for not disclosing about building seven collapse as well, would you agree? I'm still sweeping through the pdf but can't find anything.
I didn't acuse anyone in the ugly sense of the word, but you have to agree that you guys were humiliating him, calling him names and etc. Would I go too far by naming it hate? I recognize though that not all of you actually said all the hatred words that everyone brought up against him but rather endorsed each other views, which could be synthesized as a general hatred over him. Anyways I don't really go on with that anymore.
Not a problem at all.
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,810
Building 7 falling had nothing to do with the actual attacks; it was not struck by a plane the way the two towers were. Firefighter testimony and video of the smoke pouring from the entire side of the building facing WTC1 gives a pretty good indication as to what caused its collapse in the minds of most sentient beings. It's only truthers who refuse to listen to said testimony and ignore the photos and videos of the smoke obscuring the entire face of the building that think there was something dastardly behind its collapse. For the rest of us, damage caused by debris from WTC1 collapsing sparked numerous fires and caused a lot of structural damage to the building, and lack of firefighter efforts to quench the flames throughout the building compounded the damage enough to where the building collapsed.
The 9/11 Commission report did not mention WTC7 solely because it was not a target of the planes; that was WTC1 and 2. They focused, rightly, on the buildings that were actually targeted and didn't bother with extraneous details like other buildings that collapsed due to structural damage and fire NOT caused by a giant plane flying into the side of it. What exactly do you think WTC7 had to do with anything?
What did they get wrong? LOL, now you have to read something; but you will not; you will spew nothing to support a failed movement witn all your evidence, nothing. Tell us what is wrong with the report. Good luck
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
No, it's also about mental illness and good old-fashioned stupidity. Often these traits are coupled wth extreme arrogance.
Ahh come on Sabrina... that's no argument for leaving it behind. I don't think so. That was also a huge loss that day.
Why you think it didn't have anything to do to it? I'm sorry but I don't buy this one just from this argument. It was largely and strangely overlooked. Way sloppy. There's no reason the Commission Report would deliberate leave it alone. Maybe they simply couldn't handle it as its collapse was clearly unpeculiar, reasons why NIST took so long to come up with a model to explain how the collapse could have occurred, and resisted releasing the data for some time. They had in the end to be forced to find a cause and a model to explain it, and that's what happened. I won't judge though , the results NIST did come up with, it's beyond my expertise to do so. Let the ae911truth do this, if they could ever get their new investigation going!! LOL
Although I see it as being exagerated, I can't tell you're wrong.
How would I do that? You know that it's everything right!
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,662
So you don't know then. Got it. Nothing to see here.
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,866
What part of 'loser' did you guys miss? 911 Truth is for losers. You hold a rally and 10 people show up. What kind of danger does that put GWB in? ALL of your major talking points have been fired from their jobs - every last one of them. There was no public outcry. The faculty associations, the students, their colleagues, no one said or did anything. Even the fired professors themselves didn't do much of anything.
While you guys don't seem to think this is a major point, I'm trying to throw you a bone. If you guys were really a danger to anyone, this would be the first thing going on. But do the Truthers care? No way, they're too busy posting videos that claim no one died at the WTC or on free contribtor-fed newspapers.
While you guys don't seem to think this is a major point, I'm trying to throw you a bone. If you guys were really a danger to anyone, this would be the first thing going on. But do the Truthers care? No way, they're too busy posting videos that claim no one died at the WTC or on free contribtor-fed newspapers.
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,810
The 9/11 Commission was set up SOLELY to discover the whys and wherefores of the attacks against the buildings that WERE attacked. They did not add in WTC7 because IT WAS NOT ATTACKED; IT WAS COLLATERAL DAMAGE. You might as well ask why they didn't add in WTC3, 4, 5, 6, the Verizon building across the street, and 30 West Broadway, all of which sustained severe damage and also collapsed in several cases. It is strictly because those buildings were not the FOCUS of the attack that they were left out. Why you think there was some nefarious reason behind WTC7 or any of the other severely damaged buildings being left out of the 9/11 Commission report is beyond me, especially when you take into consideration that the 9/11 Commission report was NOT an engineering or architectural report.
As to the collapse of WTC7 being so mysterious; it isn't. There were firefighters who ON THE DAY OF THE ATTACKS predicted that WTC7 would fall because it was so badly damaged and they couldn't get over there to fight the fire due to lack of water pressure at the site. I don't blame NIST for wanting to take their time though; they had to realize, after being bombarded by truthers spouting random theories that weren't even supported by existing science that whatever they offered as a reason wasn't going to be good enough for those folks, so they labored to cover as many tracks as they could. I find NIST's explanation for WTC7 quite satisfactory; many others on this forum, not a few of whom work in the very fields required to determine something like this, agree with them. AE911Truth, on the other hand, only have arguments from incredulity to sustain them and cannot provide any legitimate science whatsoever to negate NIST's theory, and also cannot come up with a feasible theory that might fit in with their view of things; they have been debunked time and again.
Please, get out of 2006 and join us here in 2010 for pity's sake; this is getting horribly sad.
roscoe_the_first
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2010
- Messages
- 402
What some truth
Here try this
Days before investigation carried out.
Pearl Harbor - 9 days
Kennedy Assassination - 7 days
Challenger Disaster - 7 days
911 investigation - 411 days
Budget for investigation.
Challenger disaster - $75million
Columbia distaster - $50million
Clinton's indiscretions - $40million
911 investigation. (Worst crime in Modern history) - $3million
Just one of the reasons why we'll be in your faces for the rest of your lives.
Here try this
Days before investigation carried out.
Pearl Harbor - 9 days
Kennedy Assassination - 7 days
Challenger Disaster - 7 days
911 investigation - 411 days
Budget for investigation.
Challenger disaster - $75million
Columbia distaster - $50million
Clinton's indiscretions - $40million
911 investigation. (Worst crime in Modern history) - $3million
Just one of the reasons why we'll be in your faces for the rest of your lives.
Edited by Gaspode:
Edited for civility.
Last edited by a moderator: