Semptember the 11th

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Yet, there hasn't been any successful explanation of the structural behavior of the "pancake collapse". If I'm wrong post one, and I'll conciede my point.

What are you talking about, I argued deano several times in this forum. Where have you been?

That was the most hypocritical post ever, you complain about me jumping points (When I don't) And ignore questions I asked 20 pages ago about the structural behavior. Perfect example of a strawman, you grab the weakest point, refute it, and apply it to me. i myself claimed I don't dwell in eye witness accounts much.

Alex jones didn't write the smoking guns, shows how ignorant you are. The smoking guns are compalations of news articles, which you can read yourself. So, Why would I have to put news articles in my own words, how does that make sense?

and I'm still here because I gave you an ultimatum, Duh.

I asked you"Do you want to debate the guns one by one, or continue to ignore them?"

see what I mean ashtar on why its a waste of time arguing with them? they never pay attention and make false claims.I remember you very vividly arguing a few times with deano about some of his points he has made yet somehow he doesnt. 🙄 then he goes on to say that alex jones wrote the smoking guns when he didnt.ignorant comments like that are why it is useless arguing with them,they dont pay attention and get these weird ideas like jones inventing the 200 smoking guns.again why argue with people who dont want to learn the truth who are apologists for the failures of the 9-11 commission? it really makes no sense to do so.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar

No, you pick a point and explain why it's wrong. you asked to debate so, your going to have to go back and elaborate on all the 200 guns that were posted and you intially ignored.

I'm not posting jack, the amount of times I've had to repeat myself is ludacris. If you want to debate, find the guns and tell me what's wrong with them point by point. [/B]

exactly,its annoying having to repeat something when we already addressed it in the past many times before and proved our points and they just conviently ignored them and yet he goes on asking us to repeat them again. 🙄 yeah it sure is ludicrise the number of times we had to repeat ourselves because they chose to ignore facts and points.

Hey Deano,remember this conversation you had with overloard? overlord said-I have one message to add.governments have the power to get away with a great deal of stuff.why shouldnt they plot for their own gain if they can actually get away with it? you then responded saying-Thats true,they are selfish and evil.Thats what selfish and evil people do.and people will believe thier lies and allow them to do this.

you both so much were accuarate in everything you said.its truely sad that so many could be so afraid of the truth that they believe the lies told to them.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
see what I mean ashtar on why its a waste of time arguing with them? they never pay attention and make false claims.I remember you very vividly arguing a few times with deano about some of his points he has made yet somehow he doesnt. 🙄 then he goes on to say that alex jones wrote the smoking guns when he didnt.ignorant comments like that are why it is useless arguing with them,they dont pay attention and get these weird ideas like jones inventing the 200 smoking guns.again why argue with people who dont want to learn the truth who are apologists for the failures of the 9-11 commission? it really makes no sense to do so.

As I said before, it is not my responsibility to disprove the 200 points, it is your responsibility to prove them, in your own words. I am not here to debate Alex Jones. I am here to debate you.

I never stated that Alex Jones wrote the 200 smoking guns. I simply said that I was not here to debate Alex Jones. You are misinterpreting my statements and then telling me that I am making erroneous statements.

You refute yourself constantly by reading into things that are not there. Good show.

Attacks On 9/11 Researchers Growing

(But the truth just goes on coming out)

'The growing attack on critics of 9/11 has reached a crescendo this week. Not only has the public been exposed to multiple conspiracy debunkers on radio and television interviews as well as articles in national magazines, but this week Brigham Young University put Prof. Steven Jones on paid leave to stop any influence he might have on students pending an investigation into what BYU considers his "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements concerning the real cause of the WTC collapse.'

http://www.rense.com/general73/atck.htm

Originally posted by Deano
Attacks On 9/11 Researchers Growing

(But the truth just goes on coming out)

'The growing attack on critics of 9/11 has reached a crescendo this week. Not only has the public been exposed to multiple conspiracy debunkers on radio and television interviews as well as articles in national magazines, but this week Brigham Young University put Prof. Steven Jones on paid leave to stop any influence he might have on students pending an investigation into what BYU considers his "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements concerning the real cause of the WTC collapse.'

http://www.rense.com/general73/atck.htm

This is pathetic really, do you know how ignorant you sound when you criticize others for being close minded? You ever consider that you are partially misinformed?

And don't accuse people who aren't extremist conspirators like you of not questioning. I don't believe everything about the common conception of 9-11, but I don't come up with insane angsty conspiracy theories just to vent on the Bush administration.

you seem quite angry.

i want the real owners of this world known, so we can charge them with crimes against humanity🙂

It wasn't said in anger, more in annoyance of what i percieve of as clear ignorance of fact.

Originally posted by John!attheDisco
September 11th, 2001 has no conspiracy attached to it.

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/september2006/110906controlleddemolition.htm

I like the inaccuracy of the title...

In any case, the Peter Jennings video has been taken out of context or misunderstood. Note the 'as if' not 'It's been demolished by demolitions crew!' People tend to compare unbelievable events to others.

People who thin the WTC was demolished are ignoring facts, which clearly point out that it wasn't.

Originally posted by Alliance
People who thin the WTC was demolished are ignoring facts, which clearly point out that it wasn't.

Please post these facts, I've been dying to see them.

NIST DOES NOT support the "pancake collapse" theory. "NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers" - (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, 2005

It would seem you have a factual innacruacy.

Originally posted by Alliance
NIST DOES NOT support the "pancake collapse" theory. "NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers" - [b](NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, 2005

It would seem you have a factual innacruacy. [/B]

😆 AND?

The "Pancake Theory" is part of the official version, Yet, there is no explanation on how it works, pathetic.

But, I guess you don't need facts to believe something. The NIST moffered no explanation of strucutral behavior, They just basically said it fell with out explaining how.

Hello. NIST said that Pankake theory was NOT supported by their data. I gave you thier statement.

This is thier position, unless you have proof that they have, since the 05 publication of thier report, changed their position.

Originally posted by Alliance
Hello. NIST said that Pankake theory was NOT supported by their data. I gave you thier statement.

The NIST isn't a summary of the official version. In the official version the "Pancake Theory" is included. Infact the NIST doesn't expalin the structural behavior intial to the towers collapse at all.

Originally posted by Alliance

This is thier position, unless you have proof that they have, since the 05 publication of thier report, changed their position.

To bad the NIST isn't a summary of the official version.

l0lz! Then give us the official version and gloat all you want, because I know you're dying to, and then let us smash you down...

Originally posted by Captain REX
l0lz! Then give us the official version and gloat all you want, because I know you're dying to, and then let us smash you down...

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
To bad the NIST isn't a summary of the official version.

Then, can you give me a working defintion of the "official version"?