You're nothing but a hypocrite Bobby. Your quote below discusses none of the events on 9/11 like you claim we should be. Again, get off your pedestal and practice what you preach.
That is 100% false. This portion of what YOU quoted from my post is all about events surrounding 9/11 and 100% on topic within the context of this section of the forum. You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
That's funny Bobby that you cut out the parts of your quote that put context to it. The parts in red are what you decided to cut out. I wonder why... The purpose of your quote was not to discuss the events of 9/11. All the quote above was for is for you to make your opinion known that you think I fully support every aspect of the "OCT" and to insinuate that you care more about the truth than I do. How about man up and explain why you chose to leave the red portions out? You're so easy to expose Bobby.
Bobby, I've already explained my stance to you. I'll make it simple. It's two parts. Part 1: I believe that the government and those involved with the events leading up to the attacks on 9/11 screwed up in many ways. Many of those screwups, if handled properly, may have stopped the attacks. I believe that there are some people that did in fact lie and cover up information to cover their asses (or their buddies) because the attacks DID happen on their watch. Part 2: Now as far as the actual attacks on 9/11 and what happened to the structures/planes on that day, I agree with what you deem the "OCT". I have yet to see any detailed information that shows the "OCT" is incorrect. Maybe Hulsey's report will shows otherwise as far as WTC7 is concerned. If it does, so be it. Now if you want to continue to lie and say that I "fully support and agree with the entire "OCT", then you're lying.
One more thing. Here's a challenge for you. Let's see if you can keep your opinions directed at individuals out of the conversation and quit making personal attacks. Can you do that? I bet you can't.
He does the same all the time. If he doesn't agree, he says you fully support the OCT. I've never read the OCT.
well said ... I have stated here many times my issues with NIST and the commission report ... however, I have far more issues with truther fiction and spin ...
Consider making a computer simulation of the north tower. Remove 5 levels completely, 91 through 95. Drop the top 15 stories onto the bottom 90 and simulate what would happen. Completely removing 5 levels is more damage than aircraft impact and fire could do. This eliminates all need to discuss how hot the fire got. Too difficult for our engineering schools to handle in SEVENTEEN YEARS? We can simulate the climate 80 years into the future and put robots on Mars and have robotic drones photograph Saturn. The Twin Towers Affair is a scientific joke!
Sure I can help you out with your reading comprehension issues since you can’t figure it out for yourself. I quoted only the portion of my post that fully relates to the 9/11 discussion to show how wrong your claim was. That portion was within the context of a response to your false claim and was not meant to stand alone. As already explained numerous times I use posters such as yourself to expose the many issues surrounding 9/11 and the many fallacies that people such as yourself peddle. If you noted I clearly mentioned the gross criminal failure of the US government to legitimately investigate 9/11. And I will use you to point out that FACT as often as I can. As I always have noted your agenda is to always try to support every OCT claim, defend them at all cost, try to challenge every single contradiction, never question any part of it and often attack those who do question and/or contradict it with fact and opinion. I don’t need to “insinuate” anything about you (although I admittedly do point it out on occasion) you do a pretty good job of exposing yourself on a regular basis. There’s absolutely nothing honest or genuine about that. You can never show me any post of yours that questions anything significant about the OCT because it simply does not exist despite your purported insinuation that you care about the truth. Says Mr. Obvious (see above).
What a bunch of wholesale contradictions Gamo. In one sentence you say: "I believe that there are some people that did in fact lie and cover up information" And in the very same post you say: "I agree with what you deem the "OCT". I have yet to see any detailed information that shows the "OCT" is incorrect." So not only has an overwhelming amount of detailed information been posted and properly sourced that shows the OCT does not hold water but you yourself believe people (meaning those who contributed to the OCT) lied and covered up information. Note the reasons are irrelevant in this context, what is relevant is that they lied and covered up so the OCT cannot possibly be true even based on your own personal beliefs. Then you end the whole shebang with a claim that I'm lying when I say you fully support and agree with the entire OCT when YOU yourself claim you DO agree with the OCT. You can't have it both ways Gamo, either the OCT is true or it isn't. Either you support and defend it or you don't. But every single post of yours IS either an argument in support of the OCT or a counterclaim for anything that contradicts the OCT. You have never posted anything that significantly questions the OCT, not even here. In this post you broadly generalized while contradicting yourself but there is no detail on your part. As for Hulsey's report, the preliminary version has already proven beyond doubt that NIST committed fraud and that their WTC7 conclusion is impossible. But that was conclusively shown in numerous ways well before anyone here ever heard of Hulsey. I'm confident his final report for peer review will only show it to be true in intricate detail and will not significantly (and successfully) be challenged (not even by NIST). And that brings me to this, WTF does SO BE IT mean? That sounds like yet another apologist pass. Let me ask you this question and I'm hoping for an honest answer but I won't hold my breath. Let's say Hulsey conclusively shows that NIST's conclusion that WTC7 collapsed as a result of fire alone is sheer hokum (although I have no idea what else he needs to show that he hasn't already shown), what pray tell would then be your personal alternative theory as to what happened to WTC7? Note there are only 2 possibilities, either it was a natural collapse or it wasn't, there is no third choice.
The real reason behind 9/11 Boston attacked NYC, home of the Yankees and the NFL's headquarters. Last Red Sox World Series victory prior to 9/11: 1918 Red Sox World Series victories since 9/11: 2004, 2007, 2013, 2018 Last Patriots Super Bowl victory prior to 9/11: Never Patriots Super Bowl victories since 9/11: 2002, 2004, 2005, 2015, 2017
I can understand why for you it was “well said”, your conundrum is similar to Gamolon’s. You called NIST a bunch of hacks yet you agree with their conclusion. You claim the 9/11 Commission was based on strictly CYA (in other words lies) yet you bought their conclusion and can’t show how or why any of the major issues with it that I’ve listed are lies or taken out of context as you’ve claimed. In other words you’re intolerant of anything and everything that exposes the fiction, spin and lies of the 9/11 Commission and NIST but you’re willing to give these frauds a pass despite your claim that you have “issues” with them.
Could be poetic justice deteriorating in this absurd liberty & justice for all the Christians crusade where the Christian Nation had 25 years to stop the Islam Christiananality pedophilia mentality business second coming thru 9/11 & now 1000 miles to stop an immigrant flooding of the US as South America flooded North America with drugs for decades & for more than 25 years of that to put an end to the national religion churchstate of thieving US Constitution - old glory - old testament arsonists
Hey Shinebox and yasureoktoo... Freeze this video at the 2:25 time mark. Flashes Before the Planes Hit the World Trade Center. Gamolon says that the nose of the plane lines up with the flash that's on the side of the building. I say the nose of the plane is inside the building and the flash is to the right of the plane. What do you two say?
What caused the flash. Reflection from glass panels. reflection from running lightslights Flash edited into the film, like so many other phony things Picture taken from UFO. I'm not wasting my time looking at any more of your stupid videos, until you start answering questions/
That is not the answer to my question. Do you agree with Gamolon? That's the question. Please answer it.
Scott only answers questions with troofer videos ... I don't believe he has ever posted an original thought ...
NO. I am not answering that. I am through with your childish bullsh-t. In a discussion, it goes back and forth, and neither you nor Bobbi, has answered any questions.
You seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. If you agree with him, you'll look silly but you can't go against him either so you refuse to address the issue. This pretty much exposes you. Your behaviour is that of a paid sophist* who's checkmated. Do you think the viewers are going to take you seiously now? You didn't answer my question either. Do you agree with Gamolon? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-truthers-believe.532027/page-28#post-1069833464 * http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html https://karmayogadaily.com/2012/09/...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
