MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses

[tmd2_1]

The original thrust of the thread was an attack on two members who dare to stand against the prevailing wisdom.

The thread had languished - having spawned some equally "directed at the person" offshoot threads including the ridiculous attempt to redefine normal English language usages WRT the acronym "MIHOP".

BasqueArch has now resurrected the thread with another selection of quotemines. Despite the quotemining the bits quoted raise some interesting and legitimate issues for discussion. But BA does not address them.

Well said!
Any side track is good enough if it gives you an excuse to avoid debate of substantial issues.

Thanks!

Yep seems like anything and everything to avoid talking about something of substance!

 

[beachnut]

Those of us who are a little more open minded

LOL, he thinks terrorists are still alive and you reward him with... wow

... Well said!
Any side track is good enough if it gives you an excuse to avoid debate of substantial issues.

There are zero substantial issues from 911 truth, zero from femr2, zero from Major Tom. 10 years of failure trying to back in the inside job, and CD. They can't set goals, or say what they believe; that is the real point of the thread, to give them a chance to state what they believe and they have nothing of substance to offer. That is why they have to a place to whine about JREF, away from the "JREF blood-lust", where they have substantial threads, "Smart Idiot", and "Just Plain Idiots", threads much too complex and so intellectual, maybe you, f2, and MT are on a higher plain, and you find the lies and moronic clap-tap of 911 to be substantial stuff.


I never thought someone falling for lies/false information of terrorists being alive was something of substance. CD, total nonsense, not substance. "Demolition", not substance, just misleading nonsense.

 

[BasqueArch]

The genesis of this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7355663#post7355663

Originally Posted by beachnut
Your theory is 911 was an inside job
Femr2 - Incorrect. Why do you make up lies beachnut ? Wh

Quote: beachnut
Big proof of your bias for an inside job, your 60+ videos titled, "demolition"
Quote femr2 -ROFL. Try the following keywords in a search engine ..."assumption is the mother of all"

Quote: beachnut
Why are your videos titled "demolition"
Quote femr2- For search purposes.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7352880#post7352880
Originally Posted by Oz1976
femr2's theories.
Quote femr2- What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7355663#post7355663
Quote:
so...yeah...that's your THEORY
quote femr2-You can believe whatever you please. Try using a search engine with the keywords "assumption is the mother of all"

Unbelievably weak response, oz.

What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.

So I Complied With Your Request In This Thread

Originally Posted by BasqueArch
The following posts have been edited. See the originals for context. My underlining.
…..
Name this MIHOP

No MIHOP there at all, simply discussion of the effect of 9/11.

You’re not fooling most people. All they have to do is read your quotes.

I note you decided to chop out this section of my first post you link to...
Quote:
Pre-note: I'm not interested in pointing fingers.

But you are, to the CIA.

Simplifying to *American Government* is just folly.

Because the more complicated explanation is a global conspiracy of which the American government is a subset.

femr2 - everyone now knows that alCIAda is an artificial entity originally created by those who purport to hunt it down.

You’re saying the CIA created Al Qaeda. How is that quote mining.

Accusations of quote mining are red herrings to distract and misdirect from your damning posts. Show it. Prove it.

*Allowing planes* is again a bit leading and given the *CD hypothesis* not an accurate picture as directed would be a pre-requisite. ....
The focus of the post is about those folk who believe direct link between invasion of Iraq and the events of 9/11.

Neither here nor there.

it would appear that focus has moved onto AlCIAda and all sorts of other goals, which I will not list out here..

femr2 -Do you think security procedures applied to ordinary citizens have changed since 9/11 ? Do you think the events of 9/11 have been used for political gain and social structure change ? I certainly do, and that's what is being discussed in the posts you highlight.

There have been no successful Al Qaeda (not al CIAda) attacks on the US since 9/11.


No, you’re discussing a global conspiracy-

Quote femr2 - Have you never heard of the terms *Problem, Reaction, Solution* (Hegelian Dialectic principle), *NWO*, social conditioning, etc, etc... I do not think this thread is the right place to go into the actual meaning of any of these phrases, which very much depend upon certain levels of understanding and point-of-view, however, what is clear is...

The effect of the 9/11 events was not primarily a justification for military actions overseas, but a total and complete social environment change for every man, woman and child living in the western world. (At least)

We all now live in a world within which the infinite and never-ending virtual threat from *terrorism* is applied to every facet of our daily lives. We live in a world driven by governments justifying the removal of our freedoms in the name of protecting us from nasty unseen *threat*. We live in a world where it is *for our own good* to be treated like cattle. We live in a world moving closer to real globalism in it's very ugliest sense. Without the *catalysing* event, none of these gradual changes would have been possible.

I could *opine* for months without pausing for breath, but are you *seriously* asking the question without having a full idea of the kind of answers you could receive ?
Interesting insight into your quote mining intent though

ETA: Thanks for highlighting a post back in 2009 in which I am making it quite clear that I've no interest in pointing fingers...aka "who". And that has not chnaged since.

You’re pointing fingers.

Quote femr2 - it would appear that focus has moved onto AlCIAda and all sorts of other goals, which I will not list out here.

femr2 - What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.

So I Complied With Your Request In This Thread

 

[ozeco41]

BasqueArch:
You seem to be getting very confused. Could you state simply any substantive issue which you want discussed in this thread? AND keep the ISSUE separated from personal attacks directed at certain members? So we can address the issue and not the personalities.

Given that:

1) MIHOP has been done to death in other threads.

2) as far as I can detect no member has put forward any "Demolition Hypotheses" which are currently available for discussion; AND

3) What any person may have said in another place at another time does not present a valid issue for discussion UNLESS you put it forward as your topic for discussion and you are prepared to defend your topic - whether you stand for or against it.

 

[ozeco41]

...Yep seems like anything and everything to avoid talking about something of substance!

You said it.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Femr's attempts to hide the fact he's a truther are comical. I mean this is a guy who believes secret pods were attached to the under-bodies of the jets that hit the twin towers. That's about as truthy as one can get.

I think Femr sees himself as a smart individual and resents that we lump him together with other truthers he views as idiots, so he does this little tap dance in hopes he can distance himself from them.

Too bad there is evidence all over the interwebs showing Femr believes in the same nonsense the other clowns do, my thanks to BasqueArch who has been kind enough to present it to us in a neat cohesive package.

 

[ProBonoShill]

BasqueArch:
You seem to be getting very confused. Could you state simply any substantive issue which you want discussed in this thread? AND keep the ISSUE separated from personal attacks directed at certain members? So we can address the issue and not the personalities.

Given that:

1) MIHOP has been done to death in other threads.

2) as far as I can detect no member has put forward any "Demolition Hypotheses" which are currently available for discussion; AND

3) What any person may have said in another place at another time does not present a valid issue for discussion UNLESS you put it forward as your topic for discussion and you are prepared to defend your topic - whether you stand for or against it.

BasqueArch isn't confused at all, he's proving how dishonest Femr is and done a fine job of it.

I agree it isn't very substantial though, truthers have been lying for almost 10 years now.

 

[femr2]

this is a guy who believes secret pods were attached to the under-bodies of the jets that hit the twin towers

ROFL. Incorrect. Try... http://femr2.ucoz.com/forum/2-14-1. That's from 2009

Have I discussed the claim, sure. Have I laughed at the inept "debunker" claims, using photo's of totally different aircraft as some kind of proof, sure. Have I performed appropriate leg-work to determine what Flight 175 would look like from the angles in the photo's available, sure...

No "pod".

It's called research, ProBonoShill. You should try it some time, rather than "believing" everything you are told

 

[femr2]

BasqueArch isn't confused at all, he's proving how dishonest Femr is and done a fine job of it.

ROFL. No, he's making a fool of himself. I have no reason to be dishonest in the slightest. I would gain absolutely nothing by doing so. On the other hand, BasqueArch will continue to quote-mine for as long as he can be bothered to attempt to find what he thinks is "dirt" to attack me with and believes he's clarifying "what I believe". Funny stuff. If you are so easily led, I suggest you take a step back and actually think about what you are saying. You might also want to review what I've actually said within this forum, making sure you take the time to gain a clear understanding of context.

Oh, my ID is femr2, not "femr".

 

[ozeco41]

BasqueArch isn't confused at all, he's proving how dishonest Femr is and done a fine job of it....

So you confirm that it is a personal attack? Whilst on the allegations of dishonesty have you read the "MIHOP" thread????

...I agree it isn't very substantial though....

Glad to see that you agree.

... truthers have been lying for almost 10 years now.

Do you propose that claim is the topic for discussion?

 

[femr2]

The genesis of this thread

...has been clear from the outset.

1) beachnut said "Your theory is 911 was an inside job" and I told him "incorrect". Your primary aim was to disprove this, and you have utterly failed to do so, of course.

2) Quote-mine old posts from external sites, which even though numerous are horribly out of context and deliberately omitting surrounding discussion which shows many are from the perspective of "if this, then that" rather than what I may have thought at the time, you think provide information about what I believe. It has already been pointed out to you that the very quotes you mined show change in position, but yet even when challenged, you still cling to your utterly inept claim of "believes". If you are stupid enough to believe your own false assertions may I suggest you actually start listening. ozeco41 has made a couple of very specific points above. I suggest you read them. You are free to believe whatever you please about what you think "I believe", but you are highly likely to be very wrong. Quite why you would invest so much time on it is the really odd part.

What is it about attacking femr2 that drives you to invest the time ?

Is there some claim on this forum you wish to disprove ?

If so, then have at it.

There's only a few threads here I've posted within, so by all means be my guest.

You've repeatedly highlighted the following quote...

It's now been nearly 10 years since that tragic day and still not one person with a conscience has come forward to support either of yours or femr2's theories. No one from this inside jobby job team. 100's of 1000's of people are dead as a result of that day, and nope...no one involved could give a rats ass huh?

Now, what theory is it that you would like to discuss in a thread titled "MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses" ?

Is it the WTC7 early motion data I have presented ?
Is it the WTC1 early motion data I have presented ?

Something within the femr2 video analysis thread ?

What ?

So I Complied With Your Request In This Thread

Nope. You CONTINUE to repost old quotes which provide no information about "what I believe" which is none of your business anyway. What you think I believed by quoting portions of posts stretching back to 2009 has exactly what to do with ""MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses"" ?

It's clearly "address the arguer" and a form of personal attack from the very earliest moment.

The OP began life in another thread completely, was likely to be infracted for addressing the arguer, and so you decided to start a new thread, copying and pasting your post as the OP, making "addressing the arguer" the topic of the thread to get aound the MA. (You also bolted in Major_Tom's name to the thread title, as he is also clearly one of the posters here you wish to attack. There's no mention of him in your OP.)

All very transparent, and very boring.

But you are, to the CIA.

Incorrect. Learn to read for comprehension.

Because the more complicated explanation is a global conspiracy of which the American government is a subset.

ROFL. Who said that ? Oh, you did.

You’re saying...

ROFL. You still can't seem to understand the difference between "saying" and "said".

Accusations of quote mining are red herrings to distract and misdirect from your damning posts.

ROFL. The quantum leaps you are making right above this text are priceless. I have no problem with the historic posts. They are set in stone and anyone with the links can read them in their proper context. If they want to read every post I have made since 2009, that's fine by me. Isolating small chunks of paragraphs from historic discussion is almost always quote mining. Such chunks are almost always context-less and so open to gross misinterpretation.

Show it. Prove it.

I very much doubt I shall bother to invest time arguing with you about what you think -v- my intent at the time for posts reaching back to 2009. I very much doubt you'd listen and accept any such responses either. I imagine the discussion would go round in circles with me showing you what was meant or what has changed, and you scurrying around my ankles barking "liar" at ever increasing levels of desperate.

That you have some kind of personal obsession with me, what I "believe" and what I "think" is just creepy.

Not sure I want to feed your fetish to be honest

Others here are fully capable of seeing this nonsense for what it is. If anyone wants to challenge a particular assertion I've made in this forum that has not already been addressed, I'm more than happy to respond.

You’re pointing fingers.

Incorrect. Never have.

 

[BasqueArch]

BasqueArch:
You seem to be getting very confused. Could you state simply any substantive issue which you want discussed in this thread? AND keep the ISSUE separated from personal attacks directed at certain members? So we can address the issue and not the personalities.
Given that:

1) MIHOP has been done to death in other threads.

Which femr2 has denied he meant the USG.
I don't care who femr2 is, I'm addressing the false ideas he is spreading-
femr2 - everyone now knows that alCIAda is an artificial entity originally created by those who purport to hunt it down. If he believed that then but doesn't believe that now he can say so, he hasn't denied it.

2) as far as I can detect no member has put forward any "Demolition Hypotheses" which are currently available for discussion; AND

Many members have wondered what all this "NIST got the plane impact angle wrong is about" and "NIST is wrong the core fell first is about". It's about trying to prove an inside job by someone other than Al Qaeda. I just have not had the time yet to squander on the analysis of this "Demolition Hypothesis", but I plan to.

3) What any person may have said in another place at another time does not present a valid issue for discussion UNLESS you put it forward as your topic for discussion and you are prepared to defend your topic - whether you stand for or against it.

femr2 and Major Tom form a tag team. femr2 provides data, video and graphs. MT provides "observables and features" and uses femr2's work to bolster his CD hypothesis. They refuse to discuss who may have done it on purpose and the cause of the collapses if not by planes damage and fires.

We must wait as MT pretends he has been led by his list to a dispassionate CD conclusion. We must wait as femr2 pretends to dispassionately arrive at his MIHOP Final Post. It may be true that femr2 is not sure how this demolition took place, whether by CD or by automated planes striking engineer designed weak spots in the buildings, or some other means he has not disclosed.

In the meantime femr2 and MT have throttled discussion of their conspiracy/demolition ideas by claiming that this topic is OT on their threads.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what they refuse to admit in theirs.

 

[ProBonoShill]

ROFL. Incorrect. Try... http://femr2.ucoz.com/forum/2-14-1. That's from 2009

Have I discussed the claim, sure. Have I laughed at the inept "debunker" claims, using photo's of totally different aircraft as some kind of proof, sure. Have I performed appropriate leg-work to determine what Flight 175 would look like from the angles in the photo's available, sure...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/144540098.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/pod_zoom2.bmp[/qimg][qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/pod_zoom1.bmp[/qimg]

No "pod".

It's called research, ProBonoShill. You should try it some time, rather than "believing" everything you are told

Really? Care to explain this?

It seems Jackanory was also aware of your pod fetish, why do you think that would be?

Btw- Who is Rizla?

Femr2 will confuse you.

He is adamantly none commital yet will post videos that clearly imply an inside job. He just wants answers but wont take the time to discuss them unless you give him the right ones........inside jobby ones.

Do we really need to discuss anything with someone who actually posts on youtube and still believes that the 'PODS' were actually large explosive devices placed by the gubmint. The silly begins again.

Toffee popcorn anyone.

I see Carl68 is also well aware of your fascination surrounding these secret pods, I wonder why that is:

Here is an even better example Femr2:

Q: Why don't you do the same. Put your observations on paper, show your math, and submit it to one of the dozens of respectable, peer-reviewed journals.


A:Sure, no problemo...
Seems to me and everyone else who cares to look at this that you clearly stated your intention too:

A)Put your observations on paper
B) Show the math
and
C) Submit the paper for peer review

All done with

NO PROBLEMO...

ROFLMAO

Why do you fail at everything?

I.E:
~Collapse simulators that are not collapse simulators, and fail at being an accurate - uh-hum - 'visual aid'?
~8th grade physics questions that you answer wrong, pretend you didnt, then, when shown you did, on a seperate physics forum no less, run like a scared monkey?
~ Conservation of momentum?
~ Plane pods? (remember that fiasco...AHAHAHA)
~ Ice crystals as proof of 'UFO's"?
~ Two Flight 175's?
~ Your "there wasnt enough energy in the collpase of the towers to hurl debris to the winter garden rooftop so it must have been explosives' uneducated nonsense?
~ Using the incorrect inferior SynthEyes program to try and foresnically analzye a video?

Having said that, I really do enjoy reading you and your socks incompetent posts and watching you get just about everything you do blatantly wrong.

Keep it up kid.

And finally we have another post by Jackanory, where he makes the same claims about your belief in pods, do you think he's making these things up?

Are you an aquaintence of femr2?

femr2 is a confused no planer too. Yet he uses similar youtube videos to attempt to prove that 'pods' attached to the base of the aircraft (in your case shadow) are infact large bombs of some description. Ammusingly, he also uses the exact same puffs of smoke on entry to attempt to prove that the 'pod' was real and that the puffs of smoke where actually an ignition or detonation. The 'pod' is actually part of the undercarriage - but thats a different story.

Truthers just cant get their story in order. One says no plane at all and directs us to a video. Another says plane but with bombs attached and directs us to the same video. Yet both use the puffs of smoke as evidence. Both contradict each other and neither can provide one scrap of evidence to prove either theory. Hillarious. Classic stuff.

Your credibility is basically non-existent now.

 

[femr2]

I'm addressing the false ideas he is spreading

ROFL. Only someone with a blatantly clear purpose would quote a section of a post written in 2009, and about how the events of 9/11 have resulted in significant changes in the world we live in, and suggest that I'm "spreading false ideas".

I'd imagine that post was read by about 3 people until you invested amounts of time trawling the internet looking for information to feed your femr2 fetish.

I'd imagine rather more people have read it now, so who exactly is it that is spreading what ?

If he believed that then but doesn't believe that now he can say so, he hasn't denied it.

ROFL. Created by ? Possibly not. Funded by at times ? Sure. Involved with at times ? Sure.

Who cares. What does that have to do with your thread title "MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses" ?

It's about trying to prove an inside job

Incorrect.

I just have not had the time yet to squander on the analysis of this "Demolition Hypothesis", but I plan to.

"MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses" - You have not even STARTED that yet ?

Then what is this thread ?

Your femr2 fetish is becoming rather disturbing though. May I suggest getting some friends ?

 

[femr2]

Really? Care to explain this?

femr2 just said that ProBonoShill believes that big foot is actually his father, and he was born on the moon.

There you go. Your pop is big foot, and you were actually born on the moon.

It seems Jackanory was also aware of your pod fetish, why do you think that would be?

Jackanory is full of crap.

I see Carl68 is also well aware of your fascination surrounding these secret pods, I wonder why that is

Carl68 is full of crap.

And finally we have another post by Jackanory, where he makes the same claims about your belief in pods, do you think he's making these things up?

Yup. I just showed you rendered view of Flight 175 lit to replicate the images purported to be anomylous.

Your credibility is basically non-existent now.

Your dad was big foot !

 

[BasqueArch]

...has been clear from the outset.

1) beachnut said "Your theory is 911 was an inside job" and I told him "incorrect". Your primary aim was to disprove this, and you have utterly failed to do so, of course.

I have succeeded.

2) Quote-mine old posts from external sites, which even though numerous are horribly out of context and deliberately omitting surrounding discussion which shows many are from the perspective of "if this, then that" rather than what I may have thought at the time, you think provide information about what I believe. It has already been pointed out to you that the very quotes you mined show change in position,

I know ,because they are not quote mined. In fact I said your position on CD had changed.

but yet even when challenged, you still cling to your utterly inept claim of "believes". If you are stupid enough to believe your own false assertions may I suggest you actually start listening. ozeco41 has made a couple of very specific points above. I suggest you read them. You are free to believe whatever you please about what you think "I believe", but you are highly likely to be very wrong. Quite why you would invest so much time on it is the really odd part.

Believe/believed, it doesn't really matter to me, red herring, you haven't denied what you believe/believed to date, just a mish mash of unsubstantiated red herring "personal attack, quote-mining, why do you spend so much time etc. inky squid escape mechanism". Read my reply to ozeco41.I spent about 4 hours on the first set of quotes, and about 3 hours on the second set. From the first set of quotes to the second set is a month. What drives you to invest thousands of hours on pointless youtubes, CGIs, endless graphs, charts, measurements?

"To a truther, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards."- CI1mh4224rd

What is it about attacking femr2 that drives you to invest the time ?

Hypocrisy. I spent about 4 hours on the first set of quotes, and about 3 hours on the second set. What drives you to invest thousands of hours on pointless youtubes, CGIs, endless graphs, charts, measurements.

"To a truther, having double standards simply means they're better than the average person, because they have twice as many standards."- CI1mh4224rd

Is there some claim on this forum you wish to disprove ?

If so, then have at it.

There's only a few threads here I've posted within, so by all means be my guest.

I'm having at it.

You've repeatedly highlighted the following quote...
Quote:
It's now been nearly 10 years since that tragic day and still not one person with a conscience has come forward to support either of yours or femr2's theories. No one from this inside jobby job team. 100's of 1000's of people are dead as a result of that day, and nope...no one involved could give a rats ass huh?

I never said that, take it back.

Now, what theory is it that you would like to discuss in a thread titled "MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses" ?

Is it the WTC7 early motion data I have presented ?
Is it the WTC1 early motion data I have presented ?

Something within the femr2 video analysis thread ?

What ?

Nope. You CONTINUE to repost old quotes which provide no information about "what I believe" which is none of your business anyway. What you think I believed by quoting portions of posts stretching back to 2009 has exactly what to do with ""MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses"" ?

It's clearly "address the arguer" and a form of personal attack from the very earliest moment.

The OP began life in another thread completely, was likely to be infracted for addressing the arguer, and so you decided to start a new thread, copying and pasting your post as the OP, making "addressing the arguer" the topic of the thread to get aound the MA. (You also bolted in Major_Tom's name to the thread title, as he is also clearly one of the posters here you wish to attack. There's no mention of him in your OP.)

I haven't gotten to him yet. I've been too busy at work.

"quote BasqueArch - femr2 and Major Tom form a tag team. femr2 provides data, video and graphs. MT provides "observables and features" and uses femr2's work to bolster his CD hypothesis. They refuse to discuss who may have done it on purpose and the cause of the collapses if not by planes damage and fires.

We must wait as MT pretends he has been led by his list to a dispassionate CD conclusion. We must wait as femr2 pretends to dispassionately arrive at his MIHOP Final Post. It may be true that femr2 is not sure how this demolition took place, whether by CD or by automated planes striking engineer designed weak spots in the buildings, or some other means he has not disclosed.

In the meantime femr2 and MT have throttled discussion of their conspiracy/demolition ideas by claiming that this topic is OT on their threads.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what they refuse to admit in theirs."
.....

ROFL. The quantum leaps you are making right above this text are priceless. I have no problem with the historic posts. They are set in stone and anyone with the links can read them in their proper context. If they want to read every post I have made since 2009, that's fine by me. Isolating small chunks of paragraphs from historic discussion is almost always quote mining. Such chunks are almost always context-less and so open to gross misinterpretation.

I very much doubt I shall bother to invest time arguing with you about what you think -v- my intent at the time for posts reaching back to 2009. I very much doubt you'd listen and accept any such responses either. I imagine the discussion would go round in circles with me showing you what was meant or what has changed, and you scurrying around my ankles barking "liar" at ever increasing levels of desperate.

Believe/believed, it doesn't really matter to me, red herring, you haven't denied what you believe/believed to date, just a mish mash of unsubstantiated red herring "personal attack, quote-mining, context, misinterpretation, why do you spend so much time etc. inky squid escape mechanism"femr2 - everyone now knows that alCIAda is an artificial entity originally created by those who purport to hunt it down. If you believed that then but don't believe that now you can say so, you studiously haven't denied it.

That you have some kind of personal obsession with me, what I "believe" and what I "think" is just creepy.

Red herring, I don't care who you are, just your false ideas.

Not sure I want to feed your fetish to be honest

Others here are fully capable of seeing this nonsense for what it is. If anyone wants to challenge a particular assertion I've made in this forum that has not already been addressed, I'm more than happy to respond.

Respond to this:
femr2 - everyone now knows that alCIAda is an artificial entity originally created by those who purport to hunt it down.
And the rest of your

Quote femr2 - Have you never heard of the terms *Problem, Reaction, Solution* (Hegelian Dialectic principle), *NWO*, social conditioning, etc, etc... I do not think this thread is the right place to go into the actual meaning of any of these phrases, which very much depend upon certain levels of understanding and point-of-view, however, what is clear is...

The effect of the 9/11 events was not primarily a justification for military actions overseas, but a total and complete social environment change for every man, woman and child living in the western world. (At least)

We all now live in a world within which the infinite and never-ending virtual threat from *terrorism* is applied to every facet of our daily lives. We live in a world driven by governments justifying the removal of our freedoms in the name of protecting us from nasty unseen *threat*. We live in a world where it is *for our own good* to be treated like cattle. We live in a world moving closer to real globalism in it's very ugliest sense. Without the *catalysing* event, none of these gradual changes would have been possible.

I could *opine* for months without pausing for breath, but are you *seriously* asking the question without having a full idea of the kind of answers you could receive ?

 

[femr2]

I have succeeded.

ROFL. Incorrect.

Believe/believed, it doesn't really matter to me

That is clear.

you haven't denied what you believe/believed to date

"Your theory is 911 was an inside job"
"incorrect"

And you still think your femr2 fetish is legitimate

I spent about 4 hours on the first set of quotes, and about 3 hours on the second set.

I'm having at it.

Incorrect. You are highlighting posts made on another forum reaching back to 2009. Try discussing something I've written on this forum. I've been here since April 2009.

I never said that, take it back.

I didn't say you said it, I said you've repeatedly highlighted the following quote...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7474590&postcount=43

Quote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...80#post7352880
Originally Posted by Oz1976

femr2's theories.
Quote femr2- What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.

Which links to the quote...

It's now been nearly 10 years since that tragic day and still not one person with a conscience has come forward to support either of yours or femr2's theories. No one from this inside jobby job team. 100's of 1000's of people are dead as a result of that day, and nope...no one involved could give a rats ass huh?

Are you not even bothering to keep track of the quotes you are mining ? Not a great idea leaving a reference to your local machine temp directory in place if you value your privacy.

I haven't gotten to him yet. I've been too busy at work.

ROFL. You actual intent is very clear.

femr2 and Major Tom form a tag team.

Incorrect.

 

[BasqueArch]

ROFL. Incorrect.


That is clear.


"Your theory is 911 was an inside job"
"incorrect"

And you still think your femr2 fetish is legitimate





Incorrect. You are highlighting posts made on another forum reaching back to 2009. Try discussing something I've written on this forum. I've been here since April 2009.


I didn't say you said it, I said you've repeatedly highlighted the following quote...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7474590&postcount=43

Which links to the quote...


Are you not even bothering to keep track of the quotes you are mining ? Not a great idea leaving a reference to your local machine temp directory in place if you value your privacy.


ROFL. You actual intent is very clear.


Incorrect.

Lo que sea

 

[aggle-rithm]

ROFL. Who said that ? Oh, you did.

....

ROFL. You still can't seem to understand the difference between "saying" and "said".

....

ROFL. The quantum leaps you are making right above this text are priceless.

ROFL. Only someone with a blatantly clear purpose would quote a section of a post written in 2009, and about how the events of 9/11 have resulted in significant changes in the world we live in, and suggest that I'm "spreading false ideas".

.....

ROFL. Created by ?

ROFL. Incorrect.

....

ROFL. You actual intent is very clear.

Say what you will about truthers...they have a great sense of humor.

 

[Carll68]

All the replies by Rizla2012, err, umm, F2 are a joke, correct?

Because they sure are funny.

Kiddo, you know full well that you supported and argued the points I raised in the qoute shown by ProBono to the Nth degree. Your denial of this is ammusing and revealing...to those who werent already aware of your fascination with denial.

Having an Octogenario engineer defending you does nothing to dispell the simple truth of the matter..that is..you do not have a workng hypothesis, you have goal free insufficient 'work', and can not get your said 'work' published because it is nonsense and blatenlty inferior and incorrect.

You work from a point of nonsense and arrive at hillarious and error filled conclussions.....and expect people not to notice.

Why did you even entertain and argue pods? You did....that is fact...you argued pods tooth and nail - Point.Blank.End.

The question is...why?

Do you still believe there were 2 flight 175's?
Do you still believe the only way debris could be hurled to the wintergarden rooftops was via a CD ?
Do you still believe that ice crystals were UFO's?
Do you still believe that all the materials were crushed in the collpase of WTC?