err yet YOU waste your time on him constantly everyday taking his bait which is what they all want you to do,waste your time and many of them like you who should know better, are too willing to oblige them.sheesh.
He has been everywhere on 9/11 message boards ignoring evidence and facts that prove him wrong doing this in his debates getting owned everyday so of course he isnt going to know what NIST said.
the official explanations given by the commission have been unproven theories,you would know that if you actually researched the case instead of only seeing what you WANT to see.
Sometimes I simply can't refuse, but you're correct. I was just trying to save this guy some time is all...before he takes them seriously and actually tries to engage in an honest debate with them (which, as YOU should know by now, is NOT possible). I see your point though.
Sam, for once I'll agree with ******; it is pointless to debate me. You will lose. Like he did. Ask yourself this; do any of the twoofers here sound like they've ever won at tic-tac-toe much less an intellectual debate of any kind?
well yeah that was the correct thing to do was to tell that guy that but like i said,i see you engaging with these shills too often here myself so you should take your own advise.I hope that guy listens,too many truthers here do the ignorant thing and take their bait giving them the attention they seek and never listen no matter how many times you try and tell them not to feed them.their hopeless,i hope he doesnt turn out to be one and uses logic and common sense on this.btw,got a question for ya,check your pm box.
It's easier to squeeze grape juice out of a rock than get "intellectual debate" out of you, candy.. Your form of "debate" consists of running away when stumped only to repeat your refuted crap on another day, refusing to answer critical questions, refusing to show evidence for your claims, resorting to logical fallacies and name calling, trying to pass off a single piece of circumstantial evidence as conclusive direct evidence on its own, lying, slandering your opponent, claiming your opponent said things they didn't, getting even the simplest facts wrong, feigning victory, being hypocritical and when stumped resort to pointing out spelling mistakes and grammar (almost always being wrong yourself in such "corrections") instead of responding to the actual point. You would probably be better off sticking to tic tac toe.
Ten years, zero progress by your movement. I'll stick to my debate skills. If you had any, your movement may have gotten somewhere in 10 long years. Any word on what knocked down the lightpoles yet? No? Very well...carry on.
As opposed to the massive whopping NOTHING that YOU have accomplished? Hell you can't even prove the guy you accuse as behind the attack actually was. Ten years after 9/11, nearly nine years perps in custody, and STILL a total of ZERO convictions or guilty verdicts for the plotting of the attack.. If THAT isn't an epic fail then I don't know what is. I answered that for you in a different thread mere minutes ago, and you replied. Have you got a problem with your short term memory?
Don't have to. He confessed. Wow, the fact that they are not plotting to kill another 3,000 is what I call a success. You denied there was a conspiracy then said you didn't deny it. Sort of like you said Bush posed for a picture outside of BTW elementary then said he didn't. Sort of like you said 93 was shot down, then said it wasn't. Sort of like you said bombs were planted in the WTC buildings then said there wasn't. Sort of like when you said the 9/11 Commission Report is right on on the major points then you said it isn't. You have a long history of flip flops on this subject. I simply think it is fun to point them out over and over. Why you keep showing up to have them revealed over and over is anybody's guess. Perhaps I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself.
Only after being tortured. Therefore THIS could be the reason why he confessed, not being behind it.. Another explanation for it means such confession is circumstantial evidence. To explain what circumstantial evidence is for you since you haven't the slightest clue about logic and debate, it's something that doesn't necessarily prove something on its own because there's another explanation for it. A SINGLE piece of circumstantial evidence proves a truth only to people like you with a severe case of confirmation bias. LMAO.. You really think the Muslim extremists stopped plotting against you? Whatever.. I'll just chalk this delusion down to more baseless nonsense you pulled out of your arse. You got proof they stopped plotting? Sure when you LIE about what I've said. You said that light poles were brought down with C4.. Now you say it was airplanes... So who are you? Mr. Flip or Mr. Flop?
That he hasn't recanted is notable to most. They've stopped. Being under lock and key does that. Sorry but you'll have to adopt new anti-American heroes. It was airplane wings; the wings of AA77 to be precise. Not sure what you're talking about but continue on with the folly.
You keep ignoring this and trying to bury it to reduce the number of people who see it. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632 I guess I'll have to post it from time to time to thwart you. The fact that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757 closes the whole case. 9/11 was an inside job. http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm The nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon is not shaped like the nose of a 757. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg That's the clear evidence. There's more. http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson (excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-they-didnt-use-757-to-hit-pentagon.html http://www.physics911.net/missingwings http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html You know that 9/11 was an inside job as well as we do. I doubt that many viewers are fooled by your sophistry.
Don't you find it odd that that website starts off by telling us that the Pentagon video was edited and doctored and is not a reliable source to determine what happened on 9/11 and then goes on to use the SAME UNRELIABLE UNTRUSTWORTHY DOCTORED EDITED video to establish "conclusively" what THEY think happened? If the video was doctored, how do they know that height was added to a box? If the video was really edited, do you think they would actually miss fixing the time stamp? In all his years of blah blah blah, has he ever seen the aftermath of a 757 hitting a reinforced concrete building at over 500 mph?
That's the picture released by the government. Look at the first picture from the top here. http://0911.voila.net/index3.htm If there was any tampering with the picture, it was to hide the object behind the box. The math shows the craft behind the box wasn't a 757. Do you think the government would shorten the 757 to make it too small? They probably did that just to cause more confusion. Tell us what you think about the math's showing that the craft was too small to be a 757. A guy with that experience should know what he's talking about. Anyway, I put that forth as circumstantial evidence. The size of the craft and the shape of the nose of the craft... http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg ...close the whole case. Let's hear your view on the shape of the nose of the craft. That ain't the nose of a 757.
That you have no proof for this is also notable to most. So there's no more Muslim extremists left.. You got them all! War on terror won! woohoo! I'm talking about your obvious flip flop.. You said it was C4 before.
Only America hating scum keeps swearing his confessions are no proof. Other than that scum in question, nobody gives a rats arse. No dear, just your heroes, locked up tight for all eternity. I saw where NYPD got another one of your guys yesterday. You wearing the black arm band? No dear, The wings knocked down the light poles. C4 is your movement's creation, as was thermite, thermate, super thermite, super nano-thermate, space beams, mini-nukes, missiles, tractor beams, light sabers, atomic nano particles, A3 skywarriors, flight 93 getting shot down, damage cabs being towed to the scene, lightpoles being planted, confessions that are not confessions because the guy lied--imagine that a terrorist lying--about a few other things, witnesses being killed, etc... No dear, total fabrications are your business. Stomping twoofers into the ground is mine. And you are my favorite and easiest target.
How do you know the picture was tampered with? Unless you've seen the "unedited" photo, you don't. Do you have before and after pictures of the box? Did someone measure them before and after 9/11? The math is bogus. Height cannot be ascertained unless you know the horizontal distance of the image from the camera. I said know, not guess. Uh huh. More probablys and could haves. See above. Okay, but has he ever seen a plane crash into a reinforced concrete building at over 500 mph? If he hasn't then his statement is meaningless.
This is a bit vague. Do you mean the height of the Pentagon? That's public information. All we have to do is take the space behind the box that's the same distance from the camera as the spot where the craft hit which can be done with an overhead view... http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf ...and increase it by 27% (I measured it) to allow for the angle and see if it's twice as long as the Pentagon is high. The Pentagon is about 77 feet high and a 757 is about 150 feet long. I'm in a bit of a hurry now so here's a link to where I was discussing this on another forum. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7183548&postcount=145 The math in this proof stands up to scrutiny. http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm Let's see you use math to disprove if you disagree. Also, could you tell us what you think about the shape of the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon? http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg
I'm talking about using the picture, which incidentally the site tries to discredit, as the basis for determining that the object is too small to be a 757. LOL . . . distance measuring tool in Google Earth. I'll admit I've used that for rough estimates for cabling runs but I would not use it to prove something as exact as what you are trying to prove. And the image in the picture is not sharp enough anyway. Besides, it was doctored, wasn't it?? You measured what . . . the picture . . . or did you measure at the Pentagon? Your premise is flawed. There is not enough evidence in the clip to prove or disprove it. That's my point. You are grasping at straws. I think there is not enough detail in the clip to tell the detail because the plane was moving at over 500 mph when the picture was taken. Again, the premise of the sites you keep referencing is that the surveillance video can't be trusted because it was altered. But when it is convenient, it is used as conclusive proof that there was no plane?? You can't have it both ways. Either it was edited and can't be trusted or it was unedited and exact. Except it still is too blurry to tell much of anything.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg That's funny. I see a very clear picture. I can see the shadow line which is consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon. You don't want to see anything that goes against your foregone conclusion. To quote Jarrah White, "Pro-official version people seem to have the special ability not to be able to see what everyone else can see." All that's needed to calculate whether the plane behind the box is too small to be a 757 is a side view and an overhead view. http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf The math shows it was too small to be a 757. You refuse to do the math because you know it proves what you don't want to be true.
You can tell all of that from a 400x200 pixel jpg image with a huge amount of glare that looks like it was shot with a fisheye lens? That's pretty incredible. I don't have a forgone conclusion. I look at evidence and input and decide how logical and probable it is. The same can certainly be said of truthers as is demonstrated here on the forum every day. You need ACCURATE measurements, not Google Earth measurements extrapolated to pictures then measured in millimeters and extrapolated to feet. I refuse to do the math because you can't do precise calculations based on estimates gleaned from blurry pictures and Google Earth. Why has NO ONE involved in this extremely large and complicated conspiracy spoken out in 10 years?
That's funny. When I look at it, I see a very clear picture that can be used. http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf (third picture from top) When I use it and do the math, the figures agree with this. http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm That's why you refuse to do the math. You know the math agrees with that proof. You're always going to make the last post with a lame response but you won't sway any thinking people. This is a very clear picture of the nose of a craft that is not a 757. http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg The nose is much too pointed to be that of a 757. This has been discussed countless times so you know the truther postion. Yet, you're talking as if you'd never seen the truther position. You're game is to sway viewers who are new to the subject so we truthers have to keep posting the same thing to thwart you people. This debate is really just a war between the pro-official version people (who know very well that 9/11 was an inside job)... http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222 ...who are trying to bury the evidence that the truthers post by out-posting us, and the truthers who are posting the clear evidence. We have to keep posting it from time to time to thwart this tactic of yours. The press is owned. Science journals are owned. The educations system is owned. There are lots of scientists who are owned and the ones who aren't owned would be risking their lives if they tried come forward. Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses (MUST SEE) - YouTube At about the 30 minute mark of this video a scientist says that science fraud is common. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643# Scientists at the Rand Corporation say that depleted uranium is safe. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm There are other scientists who say the opposite. http://www.google.es/search?q=depleted uranium&tbs=vid:1 It's clear that the government can find scientists willing to sell out and lie. Here's a scientists who say that it's impossible to get something published in a science journal if it goes against the official version. Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2 - YouTube (00:16 time mark) If someone tried to blow the whistle, the press would ignore him or her. http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Wi5h3vZl6uo http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=William+Schaap++-+The+Media,+CIA,+FBI+&+Disinfo.+&aq=f http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=trWcqxrQgcc http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman /Propaganda_System_One.html PsyWar - Wake UP! - YouTube We are lied to about history. http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/149071-american-imperialism.html That's a little different from what we learn in school, isn't it? In an environment such as this, it wouldn't be that easy for an insider to come forward and blow the whistle. Here again is the link to the partial summary of proof of an inside jog that you people are trying to bury. http://able2know.org/topic/177268-1#post-4782975 You people have lost this debate. All you can do now is try to bury the part that shows you've lost which is what you seem to be trying to do.
