• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
defaultdotxbe said:
found the dynamite definition!

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/thesaurus/entry?lb=e&p=num:P1203200&lb=e

although its a synonym, not definition, and a loose one at that (note in the next definition for "pull down" for "to recieve, as wages, for ones labor" they include "win" a synonym)
Click to expand...

jeez, that's reaching for it. Even worse than CTer's (anti-tax CTers primarily) that cite Black's Law Dictionary as if it were actual law.

hmmm, i wonder what they think the phrase "yeah, right, why don't you pull the other one" means.
 
T.A.M. said:
I had a "truther" claim that we are now in the minority (those who believe the official story). So I did a little looking at the latest "scientific" poll that they are all gone crazy quoting
Click to expand...

Here's some of the Scripps poll.6%

The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner captured by terrorists but, instead was hit by a cruise missle fired by the U.S. military.*

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 6%
Not likely 80%
Don't kniow 7%
Other response 1%

The collapse if the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings.*

Very likely 6%
Somewhat likely 10%
Unlikely 77%
Don't know 6%
Other response 1%
Click to expand...

The truthers rank the six percenters. Damn not even a dime. Punks
 
Shoot,pun intended, they should revive The JFK thing. Better polls !

Here are several serious accusations that some people have made against the federal government in recent years. Please tell me if you think each of these is very likely, somewhat likely, or unlikely.
Officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy. Is this very likely, somewhat likely, or unlikely?*

Very likely 12%
Somewhat likely 28%
Unlikely 51%
Don't Know 9%
Click to expand...
 
JamesB said:
Do these morons even do any research at all? The military has not even had anti-aircraft guns for decades, much less had them emplaced in batteries around a public office building. I am glad these papers are "peer reviewed" or else they might say something really stupid.
Click to expand...
Of course the batteries don't LOOK like anti-aircraft weapons. They're disguised as light poles, portable generators, etc. Hanjour skillfully took several of these out on his attack run.

The more the "scholars" speak, the better it is for our side. Publish or and perish!


edited to be funnier
 
Last edited:
The more the "scholars" speak, the better it is for our side. Publish or perish!
Click to expand...

I have decided to open my own Journal For Abby Studies. And anyone that refuses to debate my scholars will be labeled as cowards.
 
JamesB said:
Wow, maybe I am Gravy and just don't know it yet?
Click to expand...
There are some simple questions you can answer to determine if you are Gravy. First, and most important, do the ladies luv you? Cuz the ladies can't get enough Gravy.

879044d1fd43e7f3a.jpg
 
Gravy said:
Of course the batteries don't LOOK like anti-aircraft weapons. They're disguised as light poles, portable generators, etc. Hanjour skillfully took several of these out on his attack run.

The more the "scholars" speak, the better it is for our side. Publish or perish!
Click to expand...

Amazingly they base their theories on anti-aircraft batteries which haven't existed for 20 years, and a KC-767 tanker which didn't go into production until 4 years afterwards. Maybe they should change their name to Scholars for 9/11 Anachronisms?
 
Johnny C. said:
On 911myths they say "pulling" a building is when you use cables and heavy machinery to pull buildings off their center of gravity, causing them to eventually collapse.

Either way, it just didnt happen.
Click to expand...


The ultimate irony of course, is WTC6 (or maybe 5) actually was "pulled" in the exact manner described above.

I believe CTers use the "demolition" of WTC6 as evidence that "pull" = demolish (never realising they didn't use demolitions to bring it down).

Of course all of this is a little irrelevant anyway. Silverstein is not in the demolition industry, and the conversation he was recounting was not with demolitions people.

He was a building owner talking to firemen. Why would they use demolitions jargon?

That's like a mayor recounting a conversation with a ballroom dancer and mentioning "doing the tango", and CTers concluding from this that they executed a terrorists because "Tango" is military jargon for "terrorist" and "doing" is a military euphemism for "kill".

It's plain bukkake of stupid, from the ground up.

-Andrew
 
There are some simple questions you can answer to determine if you are Gravy. First, and most important, do the ladies luv you? Cuz the ladies can't get enough Gravy.
Click to expand...

Well, it's official. We should move the molten steel arguement to focus on the molten Gravy.
 
Gravy said:
Of course the batteries don't LOOK like anti-aircraft weapons. They're disguised as light poles, portable generators, etc. Hanjour skillfully took several of these out on his attack run.

The more the "scholars" speak, the better it is for our side. Publish or and perish!


edited to be funnier
Click to expand...
Hi.

How about the both of you look up "Vulcan" and "Phalanx" and explain to me how little you both know about anti aircraft artillery?

Then, look up the various Soviet exported arms, in calibers that include 12.5 mm, 25MM, the ZSU23, 57 MM, and beyond and see how many places such AAA is still in service.

Just a tip for your Google habits.

DR
 
[pedant] You missed "Goalkeeper."

True. However, in modern parlance I believe these are considered "point defense" weapons, intended to splash incoming missiles as a last resort, probably never getting in range of an aircraft (the Falklands campaign notwithstanding). I think the M163 Vulcan was the last of its type, the preference these days to go with Stingers or other anti-aircraft missiles rather than guns.

Anyway, I really doubt these things were ringing the Pentagon. If they were, they'd have been afraid to fire them, for fear of errant flak ripping up DC. [/pedant]
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I really doubt these things were ringing the Pentagon. If they were, they'd have been afraid to fire them, for fear of errant flak ripping up DC.
Click to expand...
thats pretty much what ive been saying about the issue, even if they were AA missiles, shooting down a large aircraft over a populated area is goign to cause serious collateral damage, potentially even more than just letting it hit the pentagon
 
Darth Rotor said:
Hi.

How about the both of you look up "Vulcan" and "Phalanx" and explain to me how little you both know about anti aircraft artillery?

Then, look up the various Soviet exported arms, in calibers that include 12.5 mm, 25MM, the ZSU23, 57 MM, and beyond and see how many places such AAA is still in service.

Just a tip for your Google habits.

DR
Click to expand...

I believe what he meant was such weapons haven't been placed around the Pentagon itself for decades.

In that respect, the original statement is correct.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Hi.

How about the both of you look up "Vulcan" and "Phalanx" and explain to me how little you both know about anti aircraft artillery?

Then, look up the various Soviet exported arms, in calibers that include 12.5 mm, 25MM, the ZSU23, 57 MM, and beyond and see how many places such AAA is still in service.

Just a tip for your Google habits.

DR
Click to expand...

Those aren't anti-aircraft weapons, they are anti-missile defense systems mounted on ships. Unless an Aegis cruiser is stationed in the parking lot of the Pentagon it is not relevent.

Are we to believe the US Army uses ZSU 23-4s? Damn, those budget cuts must really be hitting home!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom