Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
T.A.M. said:
Who arem "you people"? That you are saying i am a part of? I am simply a skeptic, a canadian skeptic, who doesn't like to see people taken advantage of by the snake oil salesmen.

I am not cointelpro bill...

TAM:)
Click to expand...

SHILL!!! DISINFO!!! :p:p
 
bill smith said:
He said that theoretically there should be a new 9/11 investigation but that practically it would be pointless because they would essentially just find themselves innocent.

Well there are ways around that and I will happily accept his theoretical position as should we all..
Click to expand...

Wilkerson said, over and over again, that the political persons in charge were incompetant in their positions and in that way and in that way only, culpable in the attacks.

Wilkerson would not agree with any of the conspiracy topics that the interviewer fed him. Case in point is the interviewer bringing up what C.Rice said about her having 54 FBI offices go on heightened alert for terrorist activity. Wilkerson points out that she cannot do that directly, that she can only tell someone who will tell someone else who will tell another person in the FBI to do something. He brings up the fact that the administration was massaging data to try to put a better light on how they had been reacting to AlQada threats when in fact Al Qada was far far down on their political agenda. Its called CYA (you are old enough to know what the acronym stands for), he recounts his disgust for the way the administration behaved, he also states that if he had any thought at any time that these people would have aranged for the attacks to be carried out he would have left the country long ago. It is all of this that constitutes the 60% of the truth that the 911 Commission did not have.

Your twisting of his words in saying that Wilkerson believes that the Commission was 60% wrong is quite telling in how you operate with 'the truth' bill. He actually said that the Commission, and similar commissions do not get to 60% of the whole truth. His whole point in the interview is that it is CYA of incompetance that makes up that 60%.

Wilkerson in NO WAY supports, and in no way does any of his interview, support the contentions that you have promoted in these forums, not MIHOP nor LIHOP.

Did you actually watch the whole interview? I did!
 
Last edited:
Someone who is COINTELPRO will always say they are not COINTELPRO.

Unless they're pretending to be someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously, in which case they'll say they are COINTELPRO.

Someone who is not COINTELPRO will always say they are not COINTELPRO.

Unless they're not taking the question seriously and saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun, by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but is trying to be mistaken for someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously, in which case they'll say they are COINTELPRO.

So to review: Someone who is COINTELPRO might say they are COINTELPRO, to pretend to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously and saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun, by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but is trying to be mistaken for someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously.

And someone who is not COINTELPRO might say they are COINTELPRO, to have some fun by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but pretending to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously and saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun, by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but is trying to be mistaken for someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously.

So, always keep in mind that someone who is COINTELPRO might say they are COINTELPRO, to pretend to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously but saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but pretending to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously and saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun, by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but is trying to be mistaken for someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously.

And don't ever forget that someone who is not COINTELPRO might say they are COINTELPRO, to have some fun by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO who is pretending to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously but saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but pretending to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously and saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun, by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but is trying to be mistaken for someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously.

I'm not any of the above, though.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
9/11 truth site calls JREFies impotent cowards

A Canadian 9/11 truth site is stating that JREFies are too frightened to debate the science behind their challenge that states that the official 9/11 story violates the laws of physics.

http://www.vernon911truth.org/wtc7challenge.html

Are you all going to take this?

I don't see the problem. Just make a separate actual moderated thread that doesn't have the usual moronic insults and off-topic infantile banter. Crush them with your sound scientific reasoning and be done with it. Or...maybe they're right?
 
cmatrix said:
A Canadian 9/11 truth site is stating that JREFies are too frightened to debate the science behind their challenge that states that the official 9/11 story violates the laws of physics.

http://www.vernon911truth.org/wtc7challenge.html

Are you all going to take this?

I don't see the problem. Just make a separate actual moderated thread that doesn't have the usual moronic insults and off-topic infantile banter. Crush them with your sound scientific reasoning and be done with it. Or...maybe they're right?
Click to expand...

I bet you're the one that's the publisher of that stupid Truther site!

You have a beef with all of us, personally? Dude, get a grip & get some evidence. We don't have time to babysit a Truther whose going AWOL!

And that site is hilarious!

Here's my blog that's rational & to the point & WTC7 is talked about: http://911truthersexposed.blogspot.com/2009/10/911-truthers-exposed.html
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
Someone who is COINTELPRO will always say they are not COINTELPRO.

Unless they're pretending to be someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously, in which case they'll say they are COINTELPRO.

Someone who is not COINTELPRO will always say they are not COINTELPRO.

Unless they're not taking the question seriously and saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun, by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but is trying to be mistaken for someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously, in which case they'll say they are COINTELPRO.

So to review: Someone who is COINTELPRO might say they are COINTELPRO, to pretend to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously and saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun, by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but is trying to be mistaken for someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously.

And someone who is not COINTELPRO might say they are COINTELPRO, to have some fun by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but pretending to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously and saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun, by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but is trying to be mistaken for someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously.

So, always keep in mind that someone who is COINTELPRO might say they are COINTELPRO, to pretend to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously but saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but pretending to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously and saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun, by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but is trying to be mistaken for someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously.

And don't ever forget that someone who is not COINTELPRO might say they are COINTELPRO, to have some fun by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO who is pretending to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously but saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but pretending to be someone who is not COINTELPRO but not taking the question seriously and saying they are COINTELPRO to have some fun, by pretending to be someone who is COINTELPRO but is trying to be mistaken for someone who is not COINTELPRO and is not taking the question seriously.

I'm not any of the above, though.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

[the man in black] You're trying to trick me into giving something away...it won't work [/the man in black]
 
cmatrix said:
A Canadian 9/11 truth site is stating that JREFies are too frightened to debate the science behind their challenge that states that the official 9/11 story violates the laws of physics.

http://www.vernon911truth.org/wtc7challenge.html

Are you all going to take this?

I don't see the problem. Just make a separate actual moderated thread that doesn't have the usual moronic insults and off-topic infantile banter. Crush them with your sound scientific reasoning and be done with it. Or...maybe they're right?
Click to expand...

SO you want a thread that has none of the usual infantile banter such as "JREFies" and "too frightened to debate" and "Are you all going to take this?" and "moronic insults"?

Got it...so you won't be posting to it then I guess?

TAM:)
 
cmatrix said:
A Canadian 9/11 truth site is stating that JREFies are too frightened to debate the science behind their challenge that states that the official 9/11 story violates the laws of physics.

http://www.vernon911truth.org/wtc7challenge.html

Are you all going to take this?

I don't see the problem. Just make a separate actual moderated thread that doesn't have the usual moronic insults and off-topic infantile banter. Crush them with your sound scientific reasoning and be done with it. Or...maybe they're right?
Click to expand...

Given that you have already started two threads concerning this its comes as a suprise to me that you think we have not heard of it.

That site, your site, offers a odd 'prize' structure for anyone who can prove that the laws of physics were not broken by the so called official story. Of course this is also an odd offer in that there is no indication that the money is being held in escrow and it seems that the judge of whether or not the offered 'proof' is valid or not will be the same person supposedly putting the money up.
 
jaydeehess said:
Given that you have already started two threads concerning this its comes as a suprise to me that you think we have not heard of it.

That site, your site, offers a odd 'prize' structure for anyone who can prove that the laws of physics were not broken by the so called official story. Of course this is also an odd offer in that there is no indication that the money is being held in escrow and it seems that the judge of whether or not the offered 'proof' is valid or not will be the same person supposedly putting the money up.
Click to expand...

At least he has it in a more appropriate thread this time.

TAM:)
 
Only a Truther, whose insane enough, would say that the "Offical Story violates the Laws of Physics".

Being immortal & unable to die, now that violates the Law of Nature & Physics.

Taken from my blog:
Law of Physics:

9/11 Truthers believe that the Law of Physics was "broken". However crazy and paranoid the claim is, they believe that steel evaporated into dust, that the law of gravity couldn't have caused the collapses, that fire doesn't cause steel to soften with heavy loads on them, ect. ect. ect. The Law of Physics weren't broken in any way, shape or form, 9/11 wasn't some fantasy, the events that happened that day were real. The physical evidence supports the 9/11 Official Report that the Laws of Physics were there and are proven in the investigation by the Commission. Not a single piece of evidence on the 9/11 Truthers side has ever surfaced to debunk the Laws of Physics.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cmatrix said:
A Canadian 9/11 truth site is stating that JREFies are too frightened to debate the science behind their challenge that states that the official 9/11 story violates the laws of physics.

http://www.vernon911truth.org/wtc7challenge.html

Are you all going to take this?

I don't see the problem. Just make a separate actual moderated thread that doesn't have the usual moronic insults and off-topic infantile banter. Crush them with your sound scientific reasoning and be done with it. Or...maybe they're right?
Click to expand...

Proof you have delusions on 911. If what you say was backed up with evidence, you would have a Pulitzer Prize. You have no evidence to back your claims. 9 years and nothing but talk.


You can put all people you want to ignore, on ignore. Then you will not see the truth, only your idiotic delusions will be visible and a the 1 or 2 other posters at JREF who can't do physics will cheer you on.

Did you email all the Universities you challenged? lol

I am too afraid of you? lol

Provide evidence, pick up Pulitzer Prize. Easy if you had something rational to offer. Take action, talk is not going to change your evidence free claims.


:cool:You are a JREFies too! lol, can you make this any funnier?
9/11 truth site calls JREFies impotent cowards
Click to expand...
:cool::cool::cool:
Are you resigning from JREF, or are you sticking with us impotent cowards?
 
Last edited:
This forum is well knpown as the foremost debunker forum and so it is certain sure that the place is crawling with professional cointelpro operatives. The Pentagon even has a name for you guys (you know who you are)...'Propaganda assets'.
 
cmatrix said:
A Canadian 9/11 truth site is stating that JREFies are too frightened to debate the science behind their challenge that states that the official 9/11 story violates the laws of physics.

http://www.vernon911truth.org/wtc7challenge.html

Are you all going to take this?

I don't see the problem. Just make a separate actual moderated thread that doesn't have the usual moronic insults and off-topic infantile banter. Crush them with your sound scientific reasoning and be done with it. Or...maybe they're right?
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what kind of simulations have you run that supports your theory? Do you have any links to share your data? Surely, you have compiled your own facts and data to warrant offering such a large cash prize?
 
sabretooth47 said:
Are you EVER going to back up ANYTHING you say with facts? :confused:

The TM was DOA since 9/12/2001. 9 YEARS?! Pull the plug already.
Click to expand...

They attended the same lesson Sabretooth..


"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild" - Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors"
–FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down" –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

"I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke" - FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories"
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

"Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring and fully involved " –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly

"The flames were coming out of every window of 7 It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block".–Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

"7 was fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved" - Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

"The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman

"When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window of 7 has fire. It is an amazing site" –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6.

"The other building,#7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." FDNY Firefighter TJ Mundy

"7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable."–FDNY Firefighter Steve Modica

"So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed" -–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim
 
bill smith said:
They attended the same lesson Sabretooth..


"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild" - Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors"
–FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca

"Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down" –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

"I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke" - FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories"
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

"Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring and fully involved " –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly

"The flames were coming out of every window of 7 It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block".–Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

"7 was fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved" - Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

"The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman

"When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window of 7 has fire. It is an amazing site" –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6.

"The other building,#7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." FDNY Firefighter TJ Mundy

"7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable."–FDNY Firefighter Steve Modica

"So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed" -–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim
Click to expand...

...and this proves...what, again?

They all saw the building fully-involved...so what? How does this prove anything other than they all saw the same thing?

Stick a banana on a table in the middle of a room full of 50 people, then ask everyone what they saw. Everyone may describe the banana in their own words...but in the end...it's just a banana.

I'd say you were grasping at straws...but I don't even think you're near the edge of reality anymore...
 
bill, I contend that in the interview you posted , Wilkerson says absolutly nothing that lends support to any 911 conspiracy theory or contention at all.

Can you tell us again what you heard in that interview in which Wilkerson is saying something that does. Do be specific please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom