How Loony are the Loons?

Indolent Wretch said:
We are all independant programs in a computer generated reality that the NWO are running to find out what flaws there are in Operation Unnessecarily-Complicated-Tower-Collapse/Terrorist/Justify-War/Insurance-Scam/Paper-Shredder.

This is currently simulation 16 of 37.

Next they are going to see what happens if they fly the USS Liberty into the twin towers.
Click to expand...

You wont be wanting your NWO paycheque then?

Good, only 5,337,258,128 left to write......
 
apathoid said:
we wouldn't be getting people's quotes confused(Horatius confused one of my posts with :socks: and I'm battling an acute depression because of it)
Click to expand...

Well, since it didn't seem to work, I'll cop to that one being a deliberate mis-quote. I was hoping it would make him think. Forlorn hope, as it turns out.

So now you can rest easy, knowing you don't actually sound like him.


I thought the winky in my "apology" post would have given it away...;)
 
RemoveBush said:
"Sorry, but lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything. Please provide some links demonstrating widespread scientific dissatisfaction with the NIST investigation."

Will provide in a few, looking for them now.

"What aspect of the "mechenism" [sic] of the collapse do you feel was inadequately addressed? Various reports deal with the damage from the impact, the fire damage, and the collapse initiation itself. Assuming you read all the final reports, what do you feel should have been talked about more."

No they really don't. I have read them but it was a while back so I cannot quote any specific part right now! They did not provide answers to the fundamental questions of the collapse!

"Not a good debating practice. It makes you look 10 times worse than they do."

Yeah, but so be it! I'm not going to stand by and get attacked by people because I believe in EVIDENCE over OPPINION about something.

"You hauled up the same topics as every other CTist that has come here. I would assume this is because you believe you are capable of convincing us. Did you bother to chart the course of the other discussions, or did you just dive right on in?"

As I have already addressed... I came in here because someone posted my reply to a government agency and were attacking me with insults. I came in here to address those that wanted to debate the article I posted on another web site that was in turn copied to here and being insulted with NO support other than just name calling.

"Nor did I say you did, but thank you for putting those words in my mouth regardless. When I use quotes I am not implying you stated something. I use the quote function for that."

Oh really, notice that you DID NOT copy the original comments I made about this, but only the comment I made????

"All these things you've brought up have been discussed before, and most of the people here are getting tired of the same old BS being touted as "new evidence" that will simply blow our socks off."

See above for the following question:

"Please provide the point at which I have put words in your mouth, twisted your statements, or lied. Every quote from you I have simply used as a frame of reference for my responses to you. Please provide evidence that any other poster has done this."

"A long post on 911blogger.com by a deranged, semi-literate loon. It's fascinating that he gets NOTHING right. These are the people who want to change the world, who brand as "sheeple" others whose reasoning abilities are vastly superior. How can such an incredibly stupid person pontificate about subjects he can't begin to comprehend??"

"How Loony are the Loons?

Words fail."

"What scares me is these nut cases ... "

"Guy sounds like a fruitcake with extra nuts."

"I just hope that these loons are never let near positions of power, or, more importantly, weapons of mass destruction. Sadly, as Tim McVeigh shows us, they have."

This is all on just the 1st page. Notice not ONE person actually addressing any of the points I made to a Government Web Site.

Please provide the place ANYWHERE where I state that anything I state is "new" or "will blow your socks off". ANYWHERE! This is putting words in my mouth!
Click to expand...

Maybe if you utilized the easy-to-use quote feature, it would make it appear less like you're talking to yourself, and thus you'd appear less of a nut.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Maybe if you utilized the easy-to-use quote feature, it would make it appear less like you're talking to yourself, and thus you'd appear less of a nut.
Click to expand...

I think I've figured it out. He does not because he cannot! :Banane42: He is completely unable to figure out how the quote function works!

Of course, seeing his "abilities" in other areas, this is completely understandable.
 
RemoveBush said:
"They falsified the DNA. How did they do that?"

How was this monitored? I bet there was no one but the FBI or government allowed to witness the sampling. You seriously think there is NO CHANCE for any falsification?

"And where are the actual passengers?"

Dead! Your putting the cart before the horse! First a complete INDEPENDANT investigation needs to be conducted in order to get to the level of asking that question if it comes up!

"And how did they fake the phone calls from the planes?"

That's the easy part! Having held a FCC equivilent license for over 8 years, I can tell you that cell phones did not work at cruising altitudes or over 200 MPH! The towers CANNOT negotiate properly! If it was so easy for cell phones to work, why would the airlines need to invest millions in a transponder on planes to allow for cell phone calls? Sure some might be able to make a call, but it WOULD NOT be able to hold a call longer than 15 to 30 seconds at that speed. PERIOD!

"And who attacked USS Liberty?"

Isreal, supposedly by request of the US.

"And what has USS Liberty to do with this?"

It shows that the government is capable and willing to kill it's own. Much like Operation Northwoods.

"How about some documented, provable answers, not theory, supposition, speculation, and conspiracy mania?"

I have provided many, but you just ignore it or call it a conspiracy! What's the point if your not even going to debate what I provide?
Click to expand...

RemoveBush,

As I see it, you are not using the quote function because you are:

A. Stupid
B. Discourteous

Which is it? Or do you have a third option that is even less plausible than your political ideas?
 
RemoveBush said:
" I did post a comment on your silly assertion that voltage and current were forms of radiation, but that didn't involve any insults to you, just to your ideas and alleged qualifications.

So, were you lying when you said "Because they want to insult, I will return in kind", or are you just a liar?"

So let's just visit the attacks!!!!

"It's like he thinks we'll have to agree with him now that he's started "speaking our language". Too bad he only learned to speak it phonetically, and has no idea what the grunting noises actually mean."

"Should I start talking whackjob?"

"It's so we know WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Fruitloop."

Now some of these MAY be in response to me attacking, but if YOU or anyone else debates rather than attacking so do I.

I ONLY attack after being attacked.

Is that proof enough for you? These are your OWN words.
Click to expand...

That would be easy to determine if you used the quote function, which retarded chimpanzees would have no trouble mastering within a short time.
 
RemoveBush said:
The contract between the port authority voided that lease if there was a terrorist attack and Larry decided NOT to pursue reconstruction. If he did pursue reconstruction, then he is responsible for the lease and it's terms.
Click to expand...

And if you wish to pursue some sort of meaningful conversation, you will show some common courtesy and use the damn quote button.
 
Firestone said:
Wel, wel, wel.
De posts van VerwijderBush zijn gewoon onleesbaar.
Misschien staat er wel ergens een waardevol argument in één van zijn posts (grapje), maar zolang hij de QUOTE-functie negeert probeer ik ze niet eens te lezen!
Click to expand...

Ha ha, dat is raar om ineens een post in m'n eigen taal te lezen. Ik bedenkt er natuurlijk wel een Vlaams accent bij ;)
 
RemoveBush;2209065Your missing what I have stated multiple times..... There was a clause in the lease that allowed the lease to be VOIDED in the event of a terrorist attack![/quote said:
Yes, I actually read the Financial Times article to which you refer. It's interesting, and I had a misconception about how the lease works. I'm glad you corrected me, because I'd hate to be arguing from ignorance.

Unfortunately, it now makes even less sense that Silverstein would destroy the towers.

Silverstein leased the towers from the Port Authority, and so the PA still owned the site and made the decisions about whether or not to rebuild it. If you recall, there was a great deal of discussion around 2001 and 2002 about what exactly to do with the site. It was finally decided to put up the Freedom Tower, but that wasn't the only plan on the table.

The "escape clause" allows Silverstein to stop paying rent and capital improvements costs (which, by the way, are quoted at $200 million in the article, so I have no idea where this idea that it was a condemned building comes from).

You still haven't presented evidence it was "condemned". The low cost of capital improvements (a far cry from the billions of dollars quoted by some of the CT sites) Silverstein was responsible for would indicate otherwise.

And you claim to follow the decisions of the court, but somehow I don't believe you because you never seem to acknowledge jury decided it was one event, not two.

You must also realize that the towers were substantial source of rental income. According to the financial impact statement prepared for the NYS senate, the clients in the Ground Zero area brought in $847 million a year in rental income.

In three and a half years, that's three billion dollars.

Why bother to destroy the towers and go through all these legal battles and lose money when he could just sit around and collect over three quarters of a billion a year in rent?

And what if the insurance companies decided not to pay? They didn't have to pay out, if they felt there was something suspicious. You do know that people try to burn their own property to collect on insurance all the time, right? It doesn't work that well. So you're telling me that even though all you CTist can discover the hidden truth, all the insurance companies who stand to lose billions missed it all? That makes no sense.

Were the insurance companies in on it too?

Until you learn to use the quote function, that's it from me (unless you answer the bolded question, I'll respond to that). I just felt I needed to acknowledge the new information you found, which was nice of you, and add in some additional information I found as well.
Click to expand...
 
WildCat said:
Lovie Smith is clearly part of the 9/11 conspiracy, I bet he's talking to Larry Silverstein on that head set!

[qimg]http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/COTC/lovie_small.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Benson played for Texas.

Only running back in UT history to run for 1000 yards in each of his four seasons. Although Ricky Williams came very close.
 
RemoveBush said:
"Three letters for you: D N A.

Case closed."

I see.... So a mans wife is killed, but because there is D.N.A in his house that matches him, then the polices theory that the husband did it is fulfiled without performing any other investigation into whether or not he could have done it?

Very logical and very much like the average attitude here! With that kind of approach, you better hope that you never get into any situation where something points to you but without further investigating the evidence that you could not have done it would not be discovered. Let's hope that YOU never experience YOUR type of actual solution to how the government should validate a situation, and how people should accept that information about you.
Click to expand...

And let's hope that your life never depends on your ability to use a simple web-based utility, or you're a dead man.
 
RemoveBush, have you found out how to use the quote feature yet? It really is handy, it can even but the name of the person you're quoting in. Also, it provides this great visual breakdown of what's a quote and what's not.

It's wonderful modern technology, like a light bulb, a computer, or a car with a top speed greater than 15 miles per hour.
 
RemoveBush said:
"Arkan_Wolfshade We can see that the towers took somewhere between 115.4% to 175.8% free-fall time to complete collapsing. Personally, I do not consider 15.4%-75.8% margin of difference to qualify as being labeled "near"."

Then prove that other buildings have fallen WITHIN less than 15% of "near free fall speed". This percentage is acceptable to me, I live in a reality world where "near" has an acceptable variation and it is not an Absolute!

Though I have not timed other demolitions, perhaps this is something I will do. However, even with explosives I will bet that other implosions did not fall at the calculated values of a VACUUM!

" If you feel this is insufficient to explain the damage seen, please provide your maths showing why."

I don't dispute the outer structural damage and the internal damage stated by NIST.

"Let me put it another way. In the EPA's sample, drywall dust accounted for more than ~15% more of the outdoor sample than concrete; and account for more than ~46% more of the indoor sample.
The bulk of the cloud seen from the collapse of the towers is drywall dust not concrete dust."

Actually, that would be incorrect if you really look at it! Since the floors were CONCRETE, and the walls seperating the offices were Drywall, the ratio between the two would most likely be more CONCRETE since it is the supporting substance of the floor! Yes there would be drywall in the debris, but what was there more of drywall or concrete?

The floor can be seen here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/docs/site1099.jpg

So the ABSENSE of a large portion of this concrete being intact is problematic for the OT. There are rescue workers stating, that the largest part found is a 1" piece of a phone. That much concrete would be in large chunks piled up at the site. Does this look like a large pile of concrete????
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/20_cushman.jpg

Or maybe this:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/19_flattened.jpg

Please show me where the massive concrete is for this building? Since the floors were concrete surely there would be signs of them laying around, right? Where are they?

Perhaps this statement, which I have not verified, but if true does show more evidence to implosion.

"“Loose Change, Final Cut” has a very informative, recorded
statement by a man who was trapped at floor 8 in WTC 7 due to
an explosion below him, he states for the record. Firefighters
were able to get him and a companion out of the building before
its complete collapse. Such an explosion would weaken the
structure below, as is commonly done in controlled demolitions."
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf

This has been one of my questions about the NIST report which everyone states has been answered:

"The NIST final report only takes us to the
point where the Tower is “poised to
collapse.” ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis
added.)”"

This supports what I have been stating and so does the calculation provided in the document:

"Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse
of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1
by Gordon Ross
• “The analysis shows that despite the
assumptions made in favour of collapse
continuation, vertical movement of the falling
section would be arrested prior to
completion of the 3% shortening phase of
the impacted columns…
• “A collapse driven only by gravity would
not continue to progress beyond that point.”"

"No “stacked-up” floors in either Tower (left).
And where did the core columns go?
(How to explain without explosives?)"

See pg 25 for picture of MISSING core!

"“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of
events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation
of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this
sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse
sequence," although it does not actually include the
structural behavior of the tower after the conditions
for collapse initiation were reached...” (NIST, 2005, p.
80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
• Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer
simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for
collapse”, thus ignoring any data from that time on.
• “The results were a simulation of the structural
deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft
impact to the time at which the building became
unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005,
p. 142; emphasis added.)”"

"“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show
computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls
from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned."

"Experiments: Models of WTC floor assemblies, subjected
to intense fires, did not melt and did not collapse!
• Quoting from the final NIST report:
• “NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire
endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers….
• “All four test specimens sustained the maximum
design load for approximately 2 hours without
collapsing…
• “The results established that this type of assembly
was capable of sustaining a large gravity load,
without collapsing, for a substantial period of time
relative to the duration of the fires in any given
location on September 11.” (NIST, 2005, p. 141;
emphasis added.)"
Click to expand...


I'm heading for the fridge. Anyone else want a beer?
 
18postlayout1.png


15.png
The Quote button. This button allows you to start a new post for the current thread ("reply to thread"). The post text contains a quote of the full text of the post whose Quote button you clicked. See note (b) for the format of the quoted text. You can add your own commentary to the new post and then submit it; it will be appended to the thread. Back To Top
16.png
The Multi-Quote toggle. This toggle allows you to select multiple posts to be quoted in a reply. Once you have selected some posts (their toggles will turn red), then click the Quote button of one of the posts. All the selected posts will appear in your new reply message, in chronological order. Back To Top
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69887
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom