Search results

I believe so (legal). Care to share some of what you have learned or are doing? Have a preferred broker/firm?

Like i've said, hypostomus, or, better said, posthumorous.

Its one thing for one person to badger one person. Its another thing for one person using multiple aliases to badger one person. Then it becomes a gang, and it becomes a bully. Even worse if the bully cannot lay claim to profitable trading, and seeks to censure what the rest of us can read...

Question~ 911 Official Story: A.)small lie B.)big lie C.) not a lie (true)

In the Michelle Williams thread 15 aliases ganged up on Larry Williams. I decided to list them: Alias Joined PostsPerDay hypostomus 1/22/2002 0.68 Joe Doaks 5/8/2004 0.4 Emil Kraepelin 5/21/2004 0.15 Cassandra 6/1/2004 0.03 F.-M. Arouet 6/17/2004 0.03 Rahula Gautama...

I have abandoned this thread. I don't even check in. Bye.

Ok, give me an example of the maximum number of people needed to kill four-thousand innocent people? Or, what is the max number of people that would ever conspire/organize to kill four thousand innocent people in a day? How many insiders, on a need to know basis, would you estimate needed to...

Point well taken. And so, the last sentence should include, '...and therefore, less likely to be believed'. Hitler is said to have relied on this tendency when he said that the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed. Perhaps he was referring to the Reichstag fire. It's because...

The attempt at ridicule is noted. Now... Professionals pull buildings all the time with explosives. What is so extreme about that? Later, Larry Silversteen admitted that he gave the OK to "pull" building 7. The question is about who wired it, and when. It's not likely firemen...

1.) I don't dispute that planes flew into the buildings. I would dispute that they were from any commercial airline. 2.) I don't dispute that fire weakens steel. I dispute that there was enough sustained heat to compromise the structural integrity of the columns and/or beams in these...

What do you mean by "that"? What do you dispute? Physically, it's possible to blow up buildings to bring them down. It's the preferred method of professionals. Evidentially, that's the most likely scenario in these three cases. The rest is about motive(s), the number of insiders...

Reread my last three posts and try to offer something other than ridicule. Are you saying you can't think of any motives? What exactly do you dispute?

Controlled demolition using the latest greatest technology in that field. This is most obvious. After that one begins to speculate as to who would be involved, and what their motive might be. As for the new 99 year lease-holder of the whole WTC complex, Larry Silversteen, he had the place...

They weren't designed out of wood, nor has a steel and concrete skyscraper come down due to fire, although there have been cases of towering infernos. They would need more than luck to bring down - in a few hours - the first three skyscrapers ever due to fire.

But a smokescreen (deception) is not a novel way of waging war. And fire is not a novel way to bring down a skyscraper designed to handle wind sheer loads much stronger than any jetliner impact. And one out of three of the skyscrapers that went down by fire that day did not require the cover of...

I wouldn't call a perfectly executed precision controlled demolition of a skyscraper(s) incompetent. Neither would i call the maker of the particle world incompetent. Nor do i believe the official story about either. Atheists have an official story, and theists have an official story. The...

If you haven't noticed, the circumstances surrounding your mind at this moment are strange. And if i'm located anywhere on a blue marble spinning in the blackness of space, lit by the light of fire, then my mind is also in a strange place. I am describing how "we" or our mind has gotten...

Ok, so you've said here that anyone who does not believe the official story about 911 is superstitious, regardless of the evidence, which to you must not be evidence. Yes, i am about knowing the truth. But i'm not calling the conclusions of any research into the evidence of 911 "the...

I'll take this as a 'no'...you don't think there is any evidence that 911 was an inside job. You accept the official story. And already, you've resorted to ridicule to keep me from thinking freely about it. I've only asked you about 911, but you've linked a doctrinal that mentions practically...

Let me ask you; what is the full reach of my mind? What limits do you or i put upon it? Where does my mind start and stop? If i wanted to observe my mind, what tool would you recommend i do that with? I hope it's clear that here you are emphasizing what a mind can seem to do; invent a god...