Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see a ton of ignorance in many conspiracy supporting posts, but it's still pretty rare in those parties outside of the no-planer & DEW groups for these guys to go full-blown on appeals to omniscience and intelligent design. The absurdities are so unusual its leaving me kind of curious if he's pulling a much more brazen discrediting of the truth movement than our resident member telltale tom.
 
beachnut said:
Failed opinions based on delusions is what it is called. Your little finger represents one more than the amount of evidence you have to support your claims, the false ones you have on 911.
Click to expand...

It represents:

I have more brains in my little finger...
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I see a ton of ignorance in many conspiracy supporting posts, but it's still pretty rare in those parties outside of the no-planer & DEW groups for these guys to go full-blown on appeals to omniscience and intelligent design. The absurdities are so unusual its leaving me kind of curious if he's pulling a much more brazen discrediting of the truth movement than our resident member telltale tom.
Click to expand...

It's
1 - 1 = 0
1 - 1 = 0
1 - 1 = 0

Occam's razor.

In no special order 2 goals, based on the result, had to be attained.

Total collapse of each tower.

Total destruction of each floor and it's contents.

Two types of destruction occurred in a synchronized fashion.

The support columns had to be disabled to keep the buildings basically within their footprints when they collapsed.

Each floor and its contents were completely destroyed with some type of explosive, as evidenced by the 1/4 inch body part remains, which caused the ejections and eliminated the pancaking that would be expected in a collapse.
Click to expand...

There you go. 9/11 figured out by former IBM systems programmer in 100 words or less.


No bodies, just body parts, NBC, 08:49, 9/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpjsFQuf_7U&feature=related


NOTE the word NO.
 
Clayton Moore said:
There you go. 9/11 figured out by former IBM systems programmer in 100 words or less.
Click to expand...

Nice piece of work there, Clayton. I particularly like the way it identifies the perpetrators, summarises their motives, explains in detail how they got all the explosives into the buildings in the first place, and goes into an incredible wealth of detail about the means used to control the planes that crashed into the towers. Its summary of the Pentagon attack is masterly in its completeness, and it throws new light on our understanding of the Shanksville crash. All in all, the most complete summary of 9/11 I've seen from someone of your level of ability. I can't imagine why IBM let you go.

Dave
 
Childlike Empress said:
Yeah, that's why you "I believe everything they tell me" guys have such a comfortable seat.
Click to expand...


Projection. You believe nothing "they" tell you so you assume your ideological opposite numbers must believe everything they are told. What a banal, simpleminded view of the world you have! No critical thinking required; if "THE MAN" says "up", he must really mean "down", huh?

I've never met, or even heard of a person who believes everything the government/big business/scientists tells them. I know of some pretty super-patriotic apple pie Americans who get choked up every time they see the American flag who nevertheless become the most cynical naysayers you've ever seen when their political party isn't in power. On the other hand I've met people who will quite proudly tell me with a straight face that they believe nothing the government tells them. Like an old friend of mine who used to tell people that the moon landings were faked and the CIA has a secret base on the dark side of the moon (IOW, the government can only achieve impressive feats if it is for some vaguely sinister purpose).

Believing everything you are told is as irrational (and dangerous) as believing nothing. The only difference is that again I know of no people who fall into the former camp but I've met (IRL and online) many people who at least claim to be in the latter camp. They are, almost to a man (and yes, they are almost always male), some of the most unproductive, uninteresting and unlikable human beings I've ever run across in my 45 years. It's what happens when you habitually blame "THE MAN" for all your problems and failings rather than facing up to "the man" in the mirror.
 
Yeah, JohnG, you never met somebody who believes everything told to him, and yet you are happy to turn my tongue-in-cheek statement around and claim that I believe nothing they tell me.

You made that up. Your. Projection.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Nice piece of work there, Clayton. I particularly like the way it identifies the perpetrators, summarises their motives, explains in detail how they got all the explosives into the buildings in the first place, and goes into an incredible wealth of detail about the means used to control the planes that crashed into the towers. Its summary of the Pentagon attack is masterly in its completeness, and it throws new light on our understanding of the Shanksville crash. All in all, the most complete summary of 9/11 I've seen from someone of your level of ability. I can't imagine why IBM let you go.

Dave
Click to expand...


Again Occam's razor prevails.

I saw 3 dead buildings, with no dead bodies, and I ruled out suicide.

The rest is legwork.
 
Clayton Moore said:
NOTE the word NO.
Click to expand...

You need practice... Telltale tom still beats you in the truth movement satire category. He's the only "truth movement member" that I know of who has gotten the satire down packed without sounding like a complete... well the MA forbids me from saying the word but you get the idea....
 
Last edited:
To think... all that time and money wasted on the 9/11 Commission Report, the FEMA report, the NIST reports, PENTBOMB, etc. when 9/11 could have been explained in 100 words or less.

Amazing.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Yeah, JohnG, you never met somebody who believes everything told to him, and yet you are happy to turn my tongue-in-cheek statement around and claim that I believe nothing they tell me.

You made that up. Your. Projection.
Click to expand...


I've been reading your stuff here for quite some time. That comment of yours that I responded to was not as tongue in cheek as you'd like to pretend. I've been meaning to tell you what I did for weeks now and the post I eventually responded to seemed as good an opportunity as any.

Oh, and your comment about my projection makes no sense. I believe Bush was a grinning, deluded cretin who misled the country into war but I'll defend him against anyone who claims that he had any part (LIHOP or MIHOP) in the 9/11 attacks. I do this not because I have any affection or respect for the man (quite the contrary), but because I think the lies told about him and his administration are vile, disgusting and immoral. I don't like lies, even if they are told about a grinning, deluded cretin who misled the country into war, but I'm funny that way. Show me an example where you or any other CTists here are as evenhanded.

Your "Bartleby, the Scrivener" routine in this thread and elsewhere is tedious in the extreme.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Again Occam's razor prevails.

I saw 3 dead buildings, with no dead bodies, and I ruled out suicide.

The rest is legwork.
Click to expand...
19 murderers did 911, and your post is most disrespectful as you carry on like a Tim McVeigh CTer, with no evidence, just hate.

Thousands of dead and you make up lies about 911 based on ignorance.
 
JohnG said:
I've been reading your stuff here for quite some time. That comment of yours that I responded to was not as tongue in cheek as you'd like to pretend. I've been meaning to tell you what I did for weeks now and the post I eventually responded to seemed as good an opportunity as any.
Click to expand...


You saw what that comment did to RedWorm's argument, so you better believe that it served its purpose.

JohnG said:
Oh, and your comment about my projection makes no sense. I believe Bush was a grinning, deluded cretin who misled the country into war but I'll defend him against anyone who claims that he had any part (LIHOP or MIHOP) in the 9/11 attacks. I do this not because I have any affection or respect for the man (quite the contrary), but because I think the lies told about him and his administration are vile, disgusting and immoral. I don't like lies, even if they are told about a grinning, deluded cretin who misled the country into war, but I'm funny that way. Show me an example where you or any other CTists here are as evenhanded.

Your "Bartleby, the Scrivener" routine in this thread and elsewhere is tedious in the extreme.
Click to expand...


Comes down to the irreducible delusion, they messed up but it wasn't intentional. They really care about us and wouldn't do something like this to us. In reality, they don't care. They pulled it off well enough for us to argue about it nearly a decade later. I personally wouldn't want Dubya to be involved in a conspiracy to steal left socks for profit, so I doubt the fool was involved at all. Cheney? Rumsfeld? Definitely.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Yeah, JohnG, you never met somebody who believes everything told to him, and yet you are happy to turn my tongue-in-cheek statement around and claim that I believe nothing they tell me.

You made that up. Your. Projection.
Click to expand...

What do you believe? Share with us some of the beliefs in your working hypothesis. It will make a change from your snide,childish comments.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Comes down to the irreducible delusion, they messed up but it wasn't intentional. They really care about us and wouldn't do something like this to us. In reality, they don't care. They pulled it off well enough for us to argue about it nearly a decade later. I personally wouldn't want Dubya to be involved in a conspiracy to steal left socks for profit, so I doubt the fool was involved at all. Cheney? Rumsfeld? Definitely.
Click to expand...

How did they pull it off? Tell us. Put a stop to the "argument".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom