Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
Beachnut's definition in no way ameliorates my position. The definition largely conforms to my own definition.The take away message of today is that firemen are no longer immune from criticism. They are no longer saints. They are just professionals who unfortunately suffered heavy losses on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt at backtracking but you called them LIARS. We have proven to yu that they were not based on the inaccurate evidence you provided. You misinterpreted a very specific firefighting term to mean something that it does not. The readers have seen this, and have seen how you tried to squirm and wiggle out of it. How do you think they are going to approach anythingyou present here from now on?

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Nice attempt at backtracking but you called them LIARS. We have proven to yu that they were not based on the inaccurate evidence you provided. You misinterpreted a very specific firefighting term to mean something that it does not. The readers have seen this, and have seen how you tried to squirm and wiggle out of it. How do you think they are going to approach anythingyou present here from now on?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I think I see your attempt to indicate that when I say that some of the firemen were lying that in fact I said all of them, So in future when I see that I may post this hyperlink for the elucidation of Readers.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6328555&postcount=3336 hyperlink

By the way you seem to think I have misrepresented the expression 'fully involved in fire ' But can you show the Readers where I did that ? You can't can you ?
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
By not naming names you accuse all firemen of lying.

Coward.
Click to expand...

Was it you who said that many of the firemen who said that WTC7 was 'fully involved in fire' were also part of the 118 firefighters who made atatements that they had heard explosions in the Towers. You were going to make a list for us if I remember rightly...

I sincerely look forward to it..

Should the Readers hold their breaths while they wait for your list ?
 
RedIbis said:
What an incredibly stupid question.
Click to expand...

Not really. You hold the report in disdain and think it is a sham (that is paraphrasing Red, so I do not have a direct quote). So to use it to back one of your points is hypocritical.
 
bill smith said:
Was it you who said that many of the firemen who said that WTC7 was 'fully involved in fire' were also part of the 118 firefighters who made atatements that they had heard explosions in the Towers. You were going to make a list for us if I remember rightly...
Click to expand...

So what?

You recall incorrectly.

By not naming names you accuse all firemen of lying.

Coward.
 
bill smith said:
I think I see your attempt to indicate that when I say that some of the firemen were lying that in fact I said all of them, So in future when I see that I may post this hyperlink for the elucidation of Readers.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6328555&postcount=3336 hyperlink

By the way you seem to think I have misrepresented the expression 'fully involved in fire ' But can you show the Readers where I did that ? You can't can you ?
Click to expand...

I don't have to show them ****. They can read your posts and subsequent responses and judge for themselves. Plays semantics, the reades can very easily determine from your posts what you were trying to say or imply, and how you were subsequently proven wrong.

I also do not have the time here in clinic to do that, and i am on my ipad which is a bitch for cutting and pasting...

Like i said, if you are ok with it, just let the readers judge for themselves...you made the posts....live with it.

TAM:)
 
Oh and bill, if you were, as yOu have said, only saying SOME of the firemen were liars, in future be specific, and tell us by name which ones you think are liars.

TAM:)
 
Disbelief said:
Not really. You hold the report in disdain and think it is a sham (that is paraphrasing Red, so I do not have a direct quote). So to use it to back one of your points is hypocritical.
Click to expand...

If I'm going to analyze a report, I'd better know it. The NIST Report stands on its own, and its strengths and weaknesses are up for discussion.
 
T.A.M. said:
Oh and bill, if you were, as yOu have said, only saying SOME of the firemen were liars, in future be specific, and tell us by name which ones you think are liars.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Don't worry TAM. I will indicate who they are clearly enough without naming names.
 
If I didn't know better, Bill, I'd think you are claiming that some of the firemen are liars not based on any real evidence they are, but simply in order to rationalize the fact they are inconvenient to your position. You wouldn't do that though, would you?
 
twinstead said:
If I didn't know better, Bill, I'd think you are claiming that some of the firemen are liars not based on any real evidence they are, but simply in order to rationalize the fact they are inconvenient to your position. You wouldn't do that though, would you?
Click to expand...
she is shooting for 10 years of failure. Why does 911 truth fail to understand what a simile is?
 
RedIbis said:
If I'm going to analyze a report, I'd better know it. The NIST Report stands on its own, and its strengths and weaknesses are up for discussion.
Click to expand...

It does not matter how well you know it, it matters if you try to use it to back your position or add weight to your argument. You believe it is a sham, so using it as described is hypocritical.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Let me restate that for you so that you understand:

WTC7 WAS THE LARGEST OFFICE BUILDING FIRE IN GALACTIC HISTORY.
Click to expand...

You're cracking. It was not, nor has it ever been referred to as such. Post one source that makes such a claim. Neither Mackey, nor anyone else has ever provided evidence to support such hyperbole.
 
Well such proof would have to include proof that we are the only intelligent species with buildings in the galaxy, so not gonna happen.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Well such proof would have to include proof that we are the only intelligent species with buildings in the galaxy, so not gonna happen.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Semantics aside, do you think WTC 7 was the largest bldg fire in history?
 
RedIbis said:
You're cracking. It was not, nor has it ever been referred to as such. Post one source that makes such a claim.
Click to expand...

If you can provide proof that skyscrapers have been built elsewhere in the galaxy, we likely wouldn't be talking about 9/11 anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom