Forum
433
911 conspiracy debunked?
Originally posted by: Roy_Stewart
East/west as a location has zero validity on a nearly spherical object. It's flat earth thinking
.
if the spherical object wasn't made up of land masses and water your statement would be valid but i just went east till i could not without a different vehicle so after seeing 24 people out i moved west again
--------------------------------
In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. Lao Tzu
Originally posted by: Roy_Stewart
Seriously though Scooter everyone finds their own path.
The path one is on is the only real one.
.
could be true if "One" existed at all
--------------------------------
In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. Lao Tzu
Originally posted by: Roy_StewartOriginally posted by: bionic chronic
scootertrash you may ba a hippie and look the part and take part in scootering and ect ect, but you need to get some brains to take on roy.
He let it slip when he mentioned preferring Krishnamurti's 'style' .
It's a style issue for Scootertrash !
.
Bc i'm not taking on roy !
you may feel the need to dominate and subjigate
i was merely chatting to roy
No slip at all roy
Too true minds do like concepts i see mine likes Tao, Zen and Anti Gurus
--------------------------------
In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. Lao Tzu
Originally posted by: ScootertrashOriginally posted by: Roy_Stewart
I have to point out that your posts are evidence of thought. . . low level thought but thought nonetheless.
.
My posts are evidence of response to a stimulus
I guarantee that your posting activity could be detected via measurable neurological activity.
it's impossible to post without it.
you just value thought so much you assume i do too
No I just pointed out that you can't post without thinking.
Re. my valuing of thinking, I value all my faculties, so when thinking I try to do it properly rather than sloppily with the excuse that thinking isn't important.
We need to look after and respect all our many bodies.
.
--------------------------------
Be Ye Perfect ! ..
Originally posted by: Scootertrash
Too true minds do like concepts i see mine likes Tao, Zen and Anti Gurus
and waves. . . .
--------------------------------
Be Ye Perfect ! ..
Uncrowded waves
--------------------------------
In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. Lao Tzu
It's always uncrowded on 11/9
--------------------------------
Be Ye Perfect ! ..
Originally posted by: PrayforsurfOriginally posted by: oldscoollike Roy, on the other hand aren't really sure what's going on, but you vaguely like the idea of suspicion of the establishment so you follow along like the sheep that you are.
i concluded it from that. Maybe was wrong.
I also like the idea of suspicion of establishment. I'm just not willing to suspend my thought process to adhere to it. If what I conclude puts me in agreement with the establishment, so be it.
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
*edited 23 Aug 2010 14:43
Originally posted by: Roy_Stewart
The available evidence leads me to the conclusion that the truth regarding the destruction of the twin towers and building seven is a very serious matter.
Do you have any reasonable argument which suggests that it isn't serious ?
Oops, didn't make my meaning clear enough. I was refering to this argument on the internet. It's not really that serious. It's just half a dozen people (at most) at the bottom of the world arguing about something that happened 9 years ago. Us arguing about it isn't going to change it.
You'll still believe what you want to regardless of what I think and besides theres still 85% of the worlds population left to convince.
Two rash assumptions there:
1) That Seeka believes what he believes because he wants to believe it. That's a kind of ad hominem argument which implies that seeka doesn't look at evidence impartially. It also implies that seeka will ignore any evidence which oldschool presents.
2) That seeka is intending to convince or is required to convince the entire population of the world that he is right. The fact that seeka expresses his opinion does not imply any such thing,nor has seeka said that it his is aim..
He's ignored everything so far......
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
Originally posted by: seeka
why not stick to the topic rather than attempt to find fault in almost every word i write?
I'm trying to Dad, it's Roy, honest......
you relate the word 'denier' to the holocaust and then go onto speak on behalf of the whole planet on how they understand the word...good one.
Where did I say I was speaking on behalf of the whole planet?. I was just questioning where else anyone had ever heard the term "Denier" attached to anything other than a Holocaust Denier, thereby establishing a link with someone who is denying the truth. It was Roy who took issue with weather I was using argumentive fallacies.
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
Using the verb to deny as if it always refers to denial of the truth is truncating its real meaning so badly and for such scurrilous reasons that we can justifiably call foul on those who do it.
--------------------------------
Be Ye Perfect ! ..
*edited 23 Aug 2010 19:39
Originally posted by: oldscool
Where did I say I was speaking on behalf of the whole planet?.
Originally posted by: oldscool
besides theres still 85% of the worlds population left to convince.
okay then..85% 0f the worlds population. btw, got a stat to back that up?
Originally posted by: oldscool
He's ignored everything so far......
hard to ignore if you havn't presented anything...other than hot air and insults.
Originally posted by: oldscool
BTW, I'm not "reporting" his position as "incorrect". I'm asserting that he (and you) have not researched sufficiently to form a valid opinion.
you have no idea how much research i(or Roy for that matter) have done on the subject...more unfounded speculation.
Originally posted by: oldscool
So, by applying the term "Denier" to my position, of someone who doesn't believe the events of 9/11 were a US Government backed conspiracy, and decribing himself as a 'Truther", he is attempting to weaken my argumentative position ....
your argument is already weak as you haven't brought anything in the way of facts, it's all been speculation and personal opinion..not one fact..in fact, as usual you have nothing.
your last point is also weak as you have applied these terms to me...
Originally posted by: oldscool
You really are a dopey fukker
Originally posted by: oldscool
Like I said, dipsh1t central.....
Originally posted by: oldscool
The bogeyman, the NWO, shape shifting lizards, the forces of evil (roy's current favourite), the prince of darkness or the monster in the fukken wardrobe, call them what you will, but you seem to require "them" to exist to give validity to your sense of paranoia.
Like I said, dipsh1t central.....
really? please show how i would require shapeshifting lizards etc..or infact show us where i even mentioned having to have part of 'them' as validity.
the paranoia is also personal opinion and speculated conjecture OS...much like almost every single one of your posts so far.
how about we debate some facts?
seeing as you have non, we can start with these ... http://csi911.info/ [csi911.info]
now i realise that it contains quite a bit of physics ..so take your time to study the facts and then we can carry on the debate like adults..and hopefully without the petty abuse and insults.
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
Another good site is www.ae911.Truth.Org
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
Originally posted by: seeka
*edited 23 Aug 2010 19:39Originally posted by: oldscool
Where did I say I was speaking on behalf of the whole planet?.
Originally posted by: oldscool
besides theres still 85% of the worlds population left to convince.
okay then..85% 0f the worlds population. btw, got a stat to back that up?
Jeez man, quoting a statistic I'd read isn't speaking on behalf of the whole (or even 85%) of the planet.
Oh, and here's the link to the statistic.Wikipedia Sept 11 opinion polls [en.wikipedia.org]
For those that can't be bothered with the link, here's a quote.
The size, form and quality of polls naturally varies considerably, as does the range and specificity of questions asked. They range from large, formal polls such as those conducted by Zogby, to smaller, informal polls of limited scope, and unscientific internet polls. The questions here relate specifically to doubts about the mainstream account, and in all cases were part of a group of questions dealing with wider issues, usually of a political nature.
A poll taken by World Public Opinion, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008. They found that majorities in only 9 of the 17 countries believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.
46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.
The major point of contention I have with the websites you have constantly referenced seeka is, to me, they are reminiscent of a Michael Moore "film". They wrote and filmed the final scene first and make everything else fit the mould, such that you are left with exactly the result that they want.
Now, I haven't spent a lot of time checking these sites out, but I wouldn't mind betting that, although they make reference to the NIST reports, they contain no links to those reports so that the reader can review them and form their own opinion. Nor do they contain links to any form of dissenting view, such as that of Ryan Mackey, a dissenting review of Dr David Griffen's criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation. (BTW, Center is their spelling Roy, not mine. Americans, where'd they learn to spell?)
The NIST Reports can be freely found on the net, Just go to http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/. [wtc.nist.gov] NCSTAR1-2 is the report into buildings 1&2 and NCSTAR1A is the report into building 7. Or even just Google NIST and the World Trade Centre.
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
Originally posted by: Roy_Stewart
Using the verb to deny as if it always refers to denial of the truth is truncating its real meaning so badly and for such scurrilous reasons that we can justifiably call foul on those who do it.
How about, in an effort to save everyone the misery of the next 46 pages of discussion around the correctness of 6th form debating protocol, we ask seeka, the man who made the statements, what he believes they mean and more importantly what he intends us to understand from the use of the term "denier camp" when applied to those who don't believe cthe 9/11 conspiracy theory and the term "Truther" when applied to himself and others who do subscribe to that belief?
There, How's that? Pretty sure I haven't mixed up my strawmen, red herrings and slippery slopes there....
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
It's really irrelevant Oldschool.
What's more relevant is that the buildings could not have fallen without pre instaled demolition charges.
. . .or that a British TV channel reported that building 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it did.
. .. or that a missile hit the pentagon, not a passenger plane.
.
--------------------------------
Be Ye Perfect ! ..
Originally posted by: oldscool
Jeez man, quoting a statistic I'd read isn't speaking on behalf of the whole (or even 85%) of the planet.
Oh, and here's the link to the statistic.Wikipedia Sept 11 opinion polls [en.wikipedia.org]
For those that can't be bothered with the link, here's a quote.
The size, form and quality of polls naturally varies considerably, as does the range and specificity of questions asked. They range from large, formal polls such as those conducted by Zogby, to smaller, informal polls of limited scope, and unscientific internet polls. The questions here relate specifically to doubts about the mainstream account, and in all cases were part of a group of questions dealing with wider issues, usually of a political nature.
A poll taken by World Public Opinion, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008. They found that majorities in only 9 of the 17 countries believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.
46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.
The major point of contention I have with the websites you have constantly referenced seeka is, to me, they are reminiscent of a Michael Moore "film". They wrote and filmed the final scene first and make everything else fit the mould, such that you are left with exactly the result that they want.
Now, I haven't spent a lot of time checking these sites out, but I wouldn't mind betting that, although they make reference to the NIST reports, they contain no links to those reports so that the reader can review them and form their own opinion. Nor do they contain links to any form of dissenting view, such as that of Ryan Mackey, a dissenting review of Dr David Griffen's criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation. (BTW, Center is their spelling Roy, not mine. Americans, where'd they learn to spell?)
The NIST Reports can be freely found on the net, Just go to http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/. [wtc.nist.gov] NCSTAR1-2 is the report into buildings 1&2 and NCSTAR1A is the report into building 7. Or even just Google NIST and the World Trade Centre.
The statistic is completely irrelevant.
It makes no difference to the truth what percentage of people believe in anything.
It's just another invalid 'appeal to popularity'.
Appeals to popularity and authority underpin most of the herd thinking on the planet, it's one of the reasons why we are in so much trouble. . . it's a form of mass gullibility.
.
--------------------------------
Be Ye Perfect ! ..
*edited 24 Aug 2010 09:36
Originally posted by: oldscool
polled 16,063 people
16,063 hardly represents the worlds population ...and only 17 countries doesn't cut it either., basically you have invented a stat(85% of the worlds pop) to support your non argument.
wikipedia? nist? lol. rightio.
had time to study the FACTS in EVIDENCE yet? http://csi911.info/ [csi911.info]
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
nist...the 'authority' that takes seven yrs to figure out a concrete building fell due to an office fire...hahaha.
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
..atleast they can admit the building (wtc7) fell at free fall acceleration....but apparently thats a perfectly expectable outcome from an office fire.
..happens all the time to concrete buildings. 
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
Hey, you were the one that said "btw got a stat to back that up?"
I'm just refering you to some research into the percentage of people who believe that the US Government were responsible.
I didn't for a moment think you would believe it.
How many would it take to be representative of the world's population?
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
the 'research' or 'stats' you provided prove nothing...other than your continuing weak argument.
Originally posted by: oldscool
How many would it take to be representative of the world's population?
well, you did for one...and no doubt there are many sheeple out there who also fell for it.
Originally posted by: oldscool
.... and besides theres still 85% of the worlds population left to convince.
ready to discuss some real facts yet? here's the link..
http://csi911.info/ [csi911.info]
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
Originally posted by: seeka
nist...the 'authority' that takes seven yrs to figure out a concrete building fell due to an office fire...hahaha.
..atleast they can admit the building (wtc7) fell at free fall acceleration....but apparently thats a perfectly expectable outcome from an office fire.
..happens all the time to concrete buildings.
I seem to recall going over this with you last time. You REALLY haven't read any of the NIST reports have you.
WTC7 was a 47 storey STEEL framed building. Architects were Emory Roth & Sons and the Structural Engineer was Irwin G. Cantor.
You'd be hard pressed to find a 47 storey CONCRETE building anywhere in the world......
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
Originally posted by: seeka
ready to discuss some real facts yet? here's the link..
http://csi911.info/ [csi911.info]
I've done that once already man. It ran to 600 odd posts and then when you ran out of ideas you reverted to your original post. That's when I made the comment about feeling like I was in that episode of the Simpsons where Homer becomes heavyweight champion of the world, remember?
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
Originally posted by: oldscool
I've done that once already man. It ran to 600 odd posts and then when you ran out of ideas you reverted to your original post. That's when I made the comment about feeling like I was in that episode of the Simpsons where Homer becomes heavyweight champion of the world, remember?
no you havn't.
if you remember correctly i posted that link at the END of the 600 odd post thread, not the beginning...
that thread ended with you asking me provide some link that referred to nano thermite..which i did and you stopped posting.
then i posted the csi link and you didn't respond to it..remember? actually, you've never responded to that link..wonder why?
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
correction...i posted the nano thermite link at the end of your thread...the one you chose not to respond to.
then i started iN$IdE j0b$, and i posted the csi link at the end of that thread...which you conveniently ignored.
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
so, lets start over and discuss some facts aye?
http://csi911.info/ [csi911.info]
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
Originally posted by: Roy_Stewart
The statistic is completely irrelevant.
It makes no difference to the truth what percentage of people believe in anything.
It's just another invalid 'appeal to popularity'.
Appeals to popularity and authority underpin most of the herd thinking on the planet, it's one of the reasons why we are in so much trouble. . . it's a form of mass gullibility.
No, but I would venture to suggest that 85% of the people surveyed don't believe the evidence you so passionately believe in.
Maybe they've read the NIST reports......
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
oh, so first it's a 'statement of fact' and now it's just a 'suggestion'.
dunno why you insist on citing nist, i've said it before, there are more holes in nists reports than there is in swiss cheesh (btw, the cheese thing is not a statement of fact, just a 'suggestion')
anyway, nist aside(because clearly they have an agenda and are obvious biased in their findings)
how about we discuss some 'facts' other than 'pre determined findings'.
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
can't believe we have wasted pages of discussion on what was once 'a stat of fact' and is now termed 'suggestion'.
more speculated conjecture.
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
heres some facts...feel free to raise some debate os.
afterall, you have yet to pass one single comment on this link.
http://csi911.info/ [csi911.info]
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
Originally posted by: seeka
oh, so first it's a 'statement of fact' and now it's just a 'suggestion'.
dunno why you insist on citing nist, i've said it before, there are more holes in nists reports than there is in swiss cheesh (btw, the cheese thing is not a statement of fact, just a 'suggestion')
anyway, nist aside(because clearly they have an agenda and are obvious biased in their findings)
how about we discuss some 'facts' other than 'pre determined findings'.
Where did I say it was a statement of fact? Besides I'm just trying to fit in with Roy's application of logic to my statements.
Lets go over it again shall we?
I said,
besides theres still 85% of the worlds population left to convince.
you said,
okay then..85% 0f the worlds population. btw, got a stat to back that up?
i said,
Jeez man, quoting a statistic I'd read isn't speaking on behalf of the whole (or even 85%) of the planet.
Oh, and here's the link to the statistic.Wikipedia Sept 11 opinion polls
For those that can't be bothered with the link, here's a quote. (quote followed from Wikipedia site)
Roy said,
The statistic is completely irrelevant.
It makes no difference to the truth what percentage of people believe in anything.
It's just another invalid 'appeal to popularity'.
Appeals to popularity and authority underpin most of the herd thinking on the planet, it's one of the reasons why we are in so much trouble. . . it's a form of mass gullibility.
(some good thinking there btw I thought)
you said,
16,063 hardly represents the worlds population ...and only 17 countries doesn't cut it either., basically you have invented a stat(85% of the worlds pop) to support your non argument.
in response to Roy's post I said,
No, but I would venture to suggest that 85% of the people surveyed don't believe the evidence you so passionately believe in.
Maybe they've read the NIST reports......
Then you said,
oh, so first it's a 'statement of fact' and now it's just a 'suggestion'.
How on earth did you arrive at that?
Nowhere in there did I say the opinion polls were a statement of fact. You seem to be the one thinking that.
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
rightio then, you seeit that way, i don't.
now, moving right along...had time to check that link yet OS?..the one with FACTS.
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
You seem hell bent on debating FACTS (your capitalisation). It's not me you have to convince man. It's the other 85%.
I think the chances of being able to convince you of anything are very small indeed. Especially as you don't seem to have a grasp on even what the WTC buildings were constructed from, let alone the construction methods used. I think your time would be better spent reading a bit further afeild than 911truth.org, 911research.org and csi911.org. Failing that, go back over the "Conspiracy Theories" thread and just substitute my post where appropriate. (No cheating now or quoting me out of context)
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
quote]Originally posted by: Roy_Stewart
Seriously though Scooter everyone finds their own path.
The path one is on is the only real one.
That's pretty fukken Ninja Roy.
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
9/11 is so 2001...
*edited 24 Aug 2010 14:44
Originally posted by: oldscoolOriginally posted by: Roy_Stewart
The statistic is completely irrelevant.
It makes no difference to the truth what percentage of people believe in anything.
It's just another invalid 'appeal to popularity'.
Appeals to popularity and authority underpin most of the herd thinking on the planet, it's one of the reasons why we are in so much trouble. . . it's a form of mass gullibility.
No, but I would venture to suggest that 85% of the people surveyed don't believe the evidence you so passionately believe in.
Maybe they've read the NIST reports......
You just did it again: an invalid appeal to popularity.
The popularity of a proposition does not demonstrate its truth content.
You also appeal to emotion by using the word 'passionate'.
.
.
--------------------------------
Be Ye Perfect ! ..
*edited 24 Aug 2010 15:08
he has nothing Roy, even now he's unwilling to debate the facts in evidence and suggest i take it to his 'suggested' (and backed up by cr@p data) remaining 85% of the worlds population instead...if thats the case it makes you wonder why he even entered the debate other than to throw abuse and backpeddle over stupid stats.
infact, os is so misled he even believes we spent 600 posts debating the evidence on the csi site..when in actual fact he hasn't bothered to make one post in regards to the csi site (btw os..it's csi911.info/..not org). so not one post or opinion on the site..doesn't really seem like the work of someone who's skeptical.
also os, i'm fully aware of what the buildings are constructed from. and for around 4 yrs i believed the official fairytale.
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
Originally posted by: Roy_StewartOriginally posted by: oldscool
No, but I would venture to suggest that 85% of the people surveyed don't believe the evidence you so passionately believe in.
Maybe they've read the NIST reports......
You just did it again: an invalid appeal to popularity.
Huh? Where did I appeal to popularity. I merely observed that 85% of the people surveyed don't believe the US government were responsible. Should I have said only 15% of the people surveyed believed the US Government was responsible?
The popularity of a proposition does not demonstrate its truth content.
Very true
You also appeal to emotion by using the word 'passionate'.
My mistake. I incorrectly assumed you were somewhat passionate about this whole thing. Should I have used the term dispassionately perhaps or just not made any reference to passion at all.
I think I'll go with the no reference at all. Don't need any adverbs in there confusing things......
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
Originally posted by: 2020
9/11 is so 2001...
Still seems to get some people riled up though.....
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
*edited 24 Aug 2010 16:35
Originally posted by: seeka
backpeddle over stupid stats..
Where have I backpeddled over statistics?
You were the one who specifacally asked if I had any statistics to back up my statement and I gave you the reference. I didn't claim they were correct, just that they exist. You can't very well start calling them stupid just because they don't say what you want them too.
infact, os is so misled he even believes we spent 600 posts debating the evidence on the csi site.
I was refering to the debate we had around this very topic on the "Conspiracy Theories" thread which ran to about 600 or so posts. I don't recall you making reference to the csi911 site in that thread, although you may have.
also os, i'm fully aware of what the buildings are constructed from. and for around 4 yrs i believed the official fairytale.
Then why are you trying to mislead people into believeing that WTC 7 was a concrete framed building as per your quote below.
Originally posted by: seeka
..atleast they can admit the building (wtc7) fell at free fall acceleration....but apparently thats a perfectly expectable outcome from an office fire.
..happens all the time to concrete buildings..
--------------------------------
Wait For The Ricochet
*edited 24 Aug 2010 17:03
Originally posted by: oldscoolOriginally posted by: Roy_StewartOriginally posted by: oldscool
No, but I would venture to suggest that 85% of the people surveyed don't believe the evidence you so passionately believe in.
Maybe they've read the NIST reports......
You just did it again: an invalid appeal to popularity.
Huh? Where did I appeal to popularity. I merely observed that 85% of the people surveyed don't believe the US government were responsible. Should I have said only 15% of the people surveyed believed the US Government was responsible?
The survey records the popularity of the proposition, but this does not demonstrate the truth or falsity of the proposition, thus it is irrelevant.
So, you were either posting information which you knew to be irrelevant, or ( as seemed more likely to me ) you posted it thinking that has some relevance to the truth about 9/11, which is an invalid appeal to popularity.
Irrelevant or irrelevant with an invalid argument, either way it is irrelevant.
You also appeal to emotion by using the word 'passionate'.
My mistake. I incorrectly assumed you were somewhat passionate about this whole thing. Should I have used the term dispassionately perhaps or just not made any reference to passion at all.
I think I'll go with the no reference at all. Don't need any adverbs in there confusing things......
OK
Emotion happen, but are irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
.
--------------------------------
Be Ye Perfect ! ..
Originally posted by: seeka
*edited 24 Aug 2010 15:08
he has nothing Roy, even now he's unwilling to debate the facts in evidence and suggest i take it to his 'suggested' (and backed up by cr@p data) remaining 85% of the worlds population instead...if thats the case it makes you wonder why he even entered the debate other than to throw abuse and backpeddle over stupid stats.
infact, os is so misled he even believes we spent 600 posts debating the evidence on the csi site..when in actual fact he hasn't bothered to make one post in regards to the csi site (btw os..it's csi911.info/..not org). so not one post or opinion on the site..doesn't really seem like the work of someone who's skeptical.
also os, i'm fully aware of what the buildings are constructed from. and for around 4 yrs i believed the official fairytale.
I can't understand how anyone can believe that the buildings were taken down without pre laid demolition charges.
.
--------------------------------
Be Ye Perfect ! ..
Originally posted by: oldscool
Where have I backpeddled over statistics?
You were the one who specifacally asked if I had any statistics to back up my statement and I gave you the reference. I didn't claim they were correct, just that they exist. You can't very well start calling them stupid just because they don't say what you want them too.
up there ^^ and in this reply you've again backpeddled.
whats the point in you providing stats if you don't even believe think they are correct? i didn't call them stupid "just because they don't say what you want them too."..i called them stupid because it relied on a little over 16,000 people and came from wikipedia...super stupid...and pretty much a waste of our time.
Originally posted by: oldscool
I was refering to the debate we had around this very topic on the "Conspiracy Theories" thread which ran to about 600 or so posts. I don't recall you making reference to the csi911 site in that thread, although you may have.
maybe you should make yourself a bit clearer then..i posted the link and you replied ^^ see for yourself. i'm not a mind reader ya know. although i suspect another weak attempt at a backpedal.
i did not make reference to 911csi in your thread...in your thread i supplied a link to nano thermite which you insisted there was none...and you never posted again.... in your own thread.
i posted the csi link in 'iN$iDe j0B$'
Originally posted by: oldscool
Then why are you trying to mislead people into believeing that WTC 7 was a concrete framed building as per your quote below.
Originally posted by: seeka
..atleast they can admit the building (wtc7) fell at free fall acceleration....but apparently thats a perfectly expectable outcome from an office fire.
..happens all the time to concrete buildings..
i never once said the building was 'concrete framed'. you are now talking sh1t.
ready to discuss the facts yet? or are you gunna carry on with picking apart my every word and putting your own spin on what i have quite clearly written?
the link is up there ^^ go ahead and pick anything from it and we'll discuss and move on from this seemingly never ending distraction of 'you said this boll0cks'
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
*edited 24 Aug 2010 17:44
*spello
Originally posted by: Roy_Stewart
I can't understand how anyone can believe that the buildings were taken down without pre laid demolition charges.
.
well i did..that was till i watched footage of it about 4 yrs later and then read some more..and came to the conclusion that things just didn't add up..the more i looked into it the more questioned...didn't take long to figure out we had been lied to.
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
roy supports the 9/11 conspiracy theory so its obviously nonsense for the delusional and simple
it's no longer a theory bp.
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
such a git.
too easy ladies
what is? being in denial?
no bc, a simple post directed bp's way is now done so on the understanding that in doing so you are now a victim of a rark. awesome aye?
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
Ok, so that must mean BP is has a lifetime rarked state then, going by your logic.
just a guess really, call it a 'suggestion' even. but thats the way i see it lately.
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
negative affirmations. Look it up.
Seeka...
Should 11/9 be proven a "Conspiracy" in what way will it change your life in NZ ?
and what will you do with all your spare time ?
Do you think you'll start surfing waves again ?
Thanks for your time !
--------------------------------
Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you. lao tzu
surfscab,
a) not sure, as it stands though life for every nz'er since 9ll has changed. maybe i'll look at authority with more suspicion than i do already..i'll let ya know with more clarification when it happens..not long now.
a)i) most likely more work..and more gardening, maybe i'll spend more time here reading fight threads.
b) i started surfing waves again a few weeks back......and the rest of this week looks mighty fine.
c) you are welcome.
--------------------------------
XXIst sentry scribe
I bet if you flew a 747 smack into the middle of the skytower it would fall over.... im just saying......
Yanks are full of cr@p anyway, if some hacked off islamics did it (they claimed it enough) or they did it to themselves one things for sure. Thems was the biggest pigeons i ever did see comin' home to roost.... 
--------------------------------
www.heavywater.co.nz
Originally posted by: Mr Statik
Yanks are full of cr@p anyway, if some hacked off islamics did it (they claimed it enough) or they did it to themselves one things for sure. Thems was the biggest pigeons i ever did see comin' home to roost....
At least they don't whinge like pom.
BTW, 100% of markosharkos agree that it was not the US government.
What I think is interesting is that there is a whole lot of stuff happening in a building when you light a fire right across one or two or three floors. For starters, you've got a massive supply of oxygen up the elevator shafts from flames rising through the shafts - a pretty difficult thing to replicate outside of a building.
--------------------------------
Former surf.co rark judge
Originally posted by: Mr Statik
Yanks are full of cr@p anyway, if some hacked off islamics did it (they claimed it enough) or they did it to themselves one things for sure. Thems was the biggest pigeons i ever did see comin' home to roost....
Ahhh Real True Facts are hard to Find
But That is Pure Gold .........
--------------------------------
Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you. lao tzu