[Moderated] So What Would You Think If This Were True?

apathoid said:
Fixed it fer ya, Skippy..
Click to expand...

Thanx Crapathoid, 'preciate it.

We'll be sure to use the revenues properly. Like feeding and clothing the homeless, helping 9/11 families, you know everything you're not doing. Maybe while we're doing that, you can find another owl avatar or a cool neato panther.

You know what, I think it should be a documentary with a hip hop soundtrack. That's a great idea.

Didn't one of you guys say you want to shake your ass, while getting it handed to you?
 
Skeptic4Sure said:
Thanx Crapathoid, 'preciate it.

We'll be sure to use the revenues properly. Like feeding and clothing the homeless, helping 9/11 families, you know everything you're not doing. Maybe while we're doing that, you can find another owl avatar or a cool neato panther.

You know what, I think it should be a documentary with a hip hop soundtrack. That's a great idea.

Didn't one of you guys say you want to shake your ass, while getting it handed to you?
Click to expand...

Hand it first, then you can talk.
 
chipmunk stew said:
[derail]
S4S, are you a man of your word?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2115741#post2115741
[/derail]
Click to expand...

chipmunk stew said:
Well? Are you?
Click to expand...

Skeptic4Sure said:
Thanx Crapathoid, 'preciate it.

We'll be sure to use the revenues properly. Like feeding and clothing the homeless, helping 9/11 families, you know everything you're not doing. Maybe while we're doing that, you can find another owl avatar or a cool neato panther.

You know what, I think it should be a documentary with a hip hop soundtrack. That's a great idea.

Didn't one of you guys say you want to shake your ass, while getting it handed to you?
Click to expand...
I'll take that as a "NO".

Too bad. :nope:
 
You know...

the threats of "not knowing who you're messing with" are getting old. It smacks a bit too much of "my Dad can beat up your Dad."

Seriously, if you have actual evidence, post it. Until you can present the evidence for examination, you have nothing but a lot of hot air.

Frankly, if (as it seems) all you have are witness statements, you're still short by, oh, about 100% of the physical evidence and the majority of eyewitnesses.

Investigation, whether scientific or legal, is not about "how can I twist details until my theory can still be called correct." The entire CT crowd is nothing more than a massive exercise in ad hoc reasoning, false dichotomy, confirmation bias, and argument from ignorance.

So, until you can actually present evidence of some sort, your continued insults, insistence that we accept your word for what you supposedly have, and your kindergarden-level threats that we "don't know who we're messing with" do nothing but damage your credibility. National Enquirer might buy that, but we won't.

And just as an aside, in regards to "who we're messing with", there's really only two choices:

If you're wrong, then we're messing with a small, paranoid group that poses no realistic threat to anyone who is outside their local area.

If you're right, then we're messing iwth a small paranoid group that is soon to be eliminated by the largest, most effective and efficient conspiracy ever known...and thus pose no realistic threat to anyone outside their immediate area.

I feel pretty good with those odds.
 
Skeptic4Sure said:
Me little boy coward...you tarzan. ooga booga.

I'm not claiming. I have.
Click to expand...
Liar...
Skeptic4Sure said:
And we have already determined for a FACT that the plane was on the North Side, so those other accounts are proven to be deducion or exaggeration. Period.

Your only quandary should be regarding the actual proof from witnesses that the plane flew on the North Side.
Click to expand...
Skeptic4Sure said:
And I know for a fact, that another DPS said they saw the pole get clipped and this wasn't true.
Click to expand...
Skeptic4Sure said:
We have proven a case for deduction in our own interviews, and the argument of deduction is used in cross examining where testimony is being clarified and detailed under oath.
Click to expand...
 
Whatever new testimonies you provide, Skeptic4Sure, it will only raise countless more questions. It won't solve anything nor prove any conspiracy.
 
Thought this post of TAM's bore repeating...sums things up nicely.

(Nominated, too)

-Gumboot

T.A.M. said:
Patronization will get you nowhere. I am 36 years old, a physician. I deal with peoples lives daily. I have to tell 40 year old women they have breast cancer. I have to tell parents their child has leukemia. the only reason I am not doing so now is that Tuesday Afternoon is my half-day off.

If there is venom in my posts it is for the juvenile attempt to bait people on this forum with your so called "earth shattering" evidence.

Sitting on information for 6 weeks that could change the course of human history, just so you can "present" it "right" is juvenile and villainous in itself. If this evidence is irrefutable and sound, then bring it as it is to those who can do something about it. I am sure Barack Obama would be behind you....Hillary would love to have it. Hell, I am sure there are enough Big businessmen that hate BUSH et al that would love to present it on their cable networks. How about the authorities. I say if this evidence is as important as you say than you are acting criminally by holding on to it as long as you have. don't you think this is what you should do?

No, instead, like a couple of children, you log on here, and at LC Forum and you start bragging about your info like a couple of schoolyard tough guys. You accuse us of treating the issue with shallowness, yet you treat the issue of 3000 murders like a game. Taunting in here, teasing. How do you know whether or not the relatives of someone who lost someone in 9/11 is not reading this as we speak, yet you tease them with it, telling them, and all of us, that we have to wait until near christmas before the "truth" can be known.

This is the real world you are f&*king with here. You silly boys think someone is "listening in" on your phone calls. Let me tell you, if the powers that be were as evil as you say they are, and as all powerful, do you really think that you would even have the opportunity to listen to each other on the phone before they would have you done in and floating in the river. Think about it.

I say put up or shut up. Out with it, or get lost.

TAM
Click to expand...
 
Whatever evidence they have, it's been around for five years, undiscovered.

Whatever witnesses they have, they too will have been around for the last five years.

All they can offer us is a spin on the testimony of the already known about witnesses.

New witnesses will have to have a bloody good reason for not having come forward in the last five years.

New evidence will have to have a bloody good explanation for the same question.

Shy of a confession by one of the conspirators, it's hard to imagine these guys have got anything.

And their song and dance act on this forum doesn't give me any concern that I will be proved wrong.
 
Skeptic4Sure said:
[qimg]http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l74/LTW_Productions/Crap.jpg[/qimg]

The 757-200 engine diameter is 8 feet,
The fuselage width is 12 feet
The fuselage height is 13 feet
The wing span is 757-200: 124 feet
The total height of the fuselage and engines is 4 + 13 = 17 feet.
(757 SPECS)

The plane entered the Pentagon under an angle of 45 degrees, thus the effective horizontal lengths become length_eff = length/cos(pi*45/180)

The effective diameter engine: 11 feet (plus the mount and wing)
The effective width fuselage: 17 feet
The effective wing span 757-200: 176 feet

So explain to me again, how a 757 traveling at 6 ft above the grass was able to make cause that damage again. With a 45 ft height due to the vertical stabilizer/rudder(tail section)
Click to expand...

Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
Click to expand...
source
 
How about that Connie Nielsen in Law & Order?

hmmmmmmmmmm

I hope she'll remain a regular on the show, don't you think, Skeptic4Sure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom