Prisonplanet.com sinks to new low

Swing Dangler said:
Do you have evidence the Imperial agents faked the documents that I downloaded from the Rebel's website?
Click to expand...
I don't need evidence, I have common sense. Clearly, the Imperials don't want us to know they detroyed the WTC with the Death Star. This is why they faked the transcripts.

Swing Dangler said:
I was asked to provide other accounts of firefighters who thought there were bombs in the building. I contend that what they thought were bombs were actually anything but bombs. This of course includes pop cans.
Click to expand...
Granted. As long as you acknowledge that none of these people have gone on record stating they still believe any bombs were present that day.


Swing Dangler said:
I've been told here numerous times that those explosions that firefighters heard were anything BUT BOMBS. So I'm now convinced due to the crack investigative work at

I think the point of the article was to show an example of another person who was there in the buildings and provided a first hand account of what they thought was bombs and/or explosive devices that were in the building. The only scientific way to prove otherwise is to test for chemical signatures for explosives. To my knowledge, no Federal or independent agency did so.
But instead of accepting at face value the comments of the people who were there, their comments get explained away as anything but what the survivors and victims thought they were.
Click to expand...
And what you are conveniently ignoring is all the evidence that contradicts the use of explosives. It's not as if claims of explosives were dismissed out of hand. They were taken within the context of everything else before they were determined to be erroneous.

The big hurdle that you or any other proponent of CD has to get over is the obvious questions that such a claim raises.

Who planted the explosives?

Why were there no witnesses?

Who else is complicit either before and after the fact?

Why have none of them come forward, or not a single leak occurred?

How was it done in such a way to perfectly coincide with the plane impacts?

How did the explosives survive the fires?

How do the use of explosives account for the visible bowing of the trusses?

Why was it done secretly and made to look like two jetliners caused the collapses when it would have been several orders of magnitude easier to simply detroy the towers with bombs and blame that on the terrorists?

Why have the overwhelming majority of experts the world over not picked up on what Truthers claim is so obvious?

And those are only a few. Once you, or any other Truther, can answer these questions satisfactorily, then talk to me about chemical residue tests. Until then, your claims remain baseless and contradictory to all the other evidence, and therefore not worthy of any further investigation.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
What is next? The complete removal of all history books from the shelf considering they are filled with hearsay as well as direct quotes from dead people.
Click to expand...

To put the above quote in context, here is Swing Danglers idea of how to defend the integrity of the historical record:

JamesB Very excellent use of highlighting 'half' of the resouces that William's used. I suspected you would do this to fit your agenda: label Williams as an anti-semitie in order to discredit the conference on 9/11. In truth, he is Anti-Zionist, which of course I'm sure you and probably few of your readers realize are totally different catagories of labels.

This is really a very sad state of your blog and speaking of scholarship, a very sad treatise indeed. I hope your professor reads this post because, James, you do the same exact thing you accuse 9/11 truthers of doing and you offer poor scholarship in review of William's work. Of course you did absolutely nothing to discredit the information he used, you simply did the same thing you have done over and over when dealing with 9/11 truthers: you attack the character.

Many other sources you forgot to mention that William's cite's in his book to support his thesis which of course I knew you would not mention at all. You sir are becoming quite the master at propaganda. Are you sure you aren't working for CENTCOM or some other alphabet agency? ;)

Lets examine the other sources of Williams that you purposely left out.

1. You list David Cole but you fail to mention in what context. The context was an interview with the Aushwitz Museum Director.
Strike 1, James. What you should do now is attempt to attack the character of the director of the museum rather than attacking his interviewer. The Director's own statments contradict every 'account' of gassing at Aushwitz and the numbers themselves.

2. The Numberg Trial Logs and especially the confession/s obtained by torture.

3. The Reader's Digest of Feb. 1943 which apparently where the magical number 6 million was first mentioned. A number that most scholars have now listed as a fabrication, including the budding professor, Shawn. But actually began much earlier as shown below.

4.The Leuchter Report: An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. The author, the foremost expert on Gas Chamber technology in America. Stangely enough you do mention this man, James, but you failed to mention the Krakow Institute and their test results which matched what Leuchter arrived at: minute trace ammounts in the 'gas chambers' but huge ammounts in the delousing chamber. Strage that you failed to mention the Krakow source, James. Why is that? Lack of space on the blog? ;)

4. Of course you failed to mention the ICRC findings and activities that of course mention no mass killings, gas chambers, or systematic killings. An apology 60 years later doesn't change the reports contents. Now that is the conspiracy. Why did the Red Cross cover up this mass killing of Jews for the Germans???

5.The camps tour guides and the maps which leave off parts of the camp including what appears to be a swimming pool,a water treatment facility, and admitted reconstructions.

6. You left out testimony of surviviors that mention no mass killings or death chambers; one also stated water came out of the 'shower heads' instead of gas.

7. You list several 'HD myths' that William's uses but fail to educate us on what those myths are and how William's uses them.

8.The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!
By Martin H. Glynn (Former Governor of the State of N.Y.) Who tried to sell the public on 6 million Jewish deaths during WW 1. That didn't take of course.

9. William's spelling? Sure there are a few, but then that is a style over substance fallacy, James, as you are probably aware. Tsk Tsk.

10. There are numerous other sources that are used in his research that James fails to mention because of his agenda; that is fine, it is his blog but it is dishonest and a fraudlent representation of the 'truth'.

Well I could go on but I think you get the gist of my critique of your post.

Do I deny the holocaust? Nope. Anti-Semite? Nope. I don't know any Jews or Arabs for that matter.
Does Williams raise serious questions about Aushwitz? Yep. Do I agree with all of his findings? Nope

But trying to 'link' William's single book on Aushwitz to discredit his conference on 9/11 is sad display of your logic and has been exposed as what it is: Screwloosechange propaganda that has just been debunked.

If you want to impress us all James, don't cherry pick the sources William's uses to support your position as you accuse him of doing. The kettle is black is it not? To get a better grade on your blog, bring to light all of his sources and then support or discredit those sources with your own reasoning.

Happy Superbowl Sunday, and Go Colts!
Click to expand...
 
johnny karate said:
I don't need evidence, I have common sense.

And those are only a few. Once you, or any other Truther, can answer these questions satisfactorily, then talk to me about chemical residue tests. Until then, your claims remain baseless and contradictory to all the other evidence, and therefore not worthy of any further investigation.
Click to expand...

So theory and speculation in the way of science? Now you sound like a truther!

Johnny, I have to nominate you for this one...
I don't need evidence, I have common sense.
Click to expand...
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Are you really so puerile as to take his quote out of context, from a discussion regarding the Death Star (Star Wars) where he was mocking CTist thought processes? Pathetic.
Click to expand...

I think Swing's just trying to corner the market on Stundie-worthy posts today. :p
 
Since Johnny was mocking you, I guess you just nominated your own logic, Swing.

:bigclap

Way to go.
 
CHF said:
Swing, you seem to have a lot of hearsay and quotes made in the midst of a chaotic situation.

Got any papers that prove there were bombs in the buildings?
Click to expand...


You must be forgetting Swing's paper!


Let's start with the FIVE structural engineers at AE911: Haluk Akol, Mike Swenson (unconfirmed), Charles Pegelow (oil rigs), Dennis Kollar, and Rich Reed.

Show me their work.
Click to expand...


They've got five of them now? WOW!


dudalb said:
I second the nomination. My jaw dropped that somebody would dare to use that argument.
Click to expand...


That's nothing, you should hear his arguments against evolution.
 
Swing Dangler said:
So theory and speculation in the way of science? Now you sound like a truther!
Click to expand...
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Before any kind of scientific investigation is done, a hypothesis is first formed based on observation and rationale. This is the scientific method.

Your CD claim has never passed the hypothesis phase. Why? Because none of the evidence points to it. Therefore, it was discarded for a more favorable hypothesis: structural damage and fire. And it turns out this hypothesis withstood the rigors of analysis and experimentation.

If you want a CD hypothesis to be taken seriously, you need to come up with something a little more convincing than the incredulity of uninformed malcontents.

Swing Dangler said:
Johnny, I have to nominate you for this one...
Click to expand...
Why are you defending Darth Vader, you Imperial shill!

pwned
 
AEfort00th911 has 5 structural engineers. Let's say they're part of the 4.6% that believe in MIHOP. That would mean there is ~100 structural engineers in the entire country. Somehow I doubt that. I worked my co-op at a small engineering company of 40 engineers in a small city back in 95, and they had 6 structural engineers. (I was not an engineering co-op and not claiming to be one)

So even out of their field, they're even lower than the national 4.6% with the belief that the towers were brought down.

Well... In life, someone's gotta finish last. Someone's gotta finish at the bottom of their graduating class. Some engineers have to be so incompetent that they think this was a CD CT.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Do you have any empirical evidence showing there were no explosives used?
Click to expand...
Sure. Point out the explosive sequence that accompanies all controlled demolitions by explosives here:

They had a direct line of sight to the building, so there was nothing to muffle the sound.
 
OK, first, I want to apologize to the mods for this, but...

Is this how you're spending your "9/11 Strike" day, Swing Dangler? Trolling an Internet forum? I thought this was supposed to be a day of action for you truthers? I can't possibly think of a lazier bunch of revolutionaries...

V for Valium...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom