What really happened ....11 september

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ratboy88:

you rang???

Not you, batgirl. No one here cares what you have to say.

Quote from neophyte321:
I honestly don't think these people believe half the shit they spewing

Believe me, I used to think the same thing, but now I'm convinced otherwise. When you read statements like 'Islamic extremists have no reason to hate America' and 'go ahead and name one possible motive that Al Qaeda could have for attacking the US', you realize that the CTs here are actually the conceptual equivalent of the brainwashed young men and women who strap on the explosive vest and kill children in order to get serviced by 32 blonde virgins.

Interesting that CTs like Bitstream have essentially become apologists for Islamic terrorism.

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from neophyte321:

I see you like picking this scab of a thread also. This thread is a mental car wreck and it is hard to look away.

Not only that, in his latest post he aruges; ..........., it also needs to be refutred.

Be careful nikki just lambasted others for their obviously uneducated postings. I think she may key in on 'aruges' and 'refutred.' Given this precedence she will have to conclude that you are gullible and therefore your argument is null and void. I on the other hand will over look your lack of a college education and welcome you to the debate.

you will have to forgive her, she is a grammar fanatic and no doubt was her elementary school's grammar rodeo champ!!!!!!

 

[Bitstream]

those are govt sponsored link, period. and the writers of the debunking the miths are unkown people that refuse to say who they are. notice on their site there's no info whatsoever about who's running the site, who's the publisher, who's the administrator and so on. zip, nada, squat. the director even admitted he doesn't want to reveal his identity. this is not only highly suspicious but also doesn't lend any credibility since u cant check the background of those who claim to be experts. i mean, what have they got to hide? if u cant see the irony of it well, u are really lost.

Quote from Haroki:

Honestly, I have no idea why you keep saying I'm quoting PM, when I'm not. And you have proven NOTHING regarding the links. It's all just a desperate attempt to preserve your little world where the boogeyman is the big bad govt. LMAO.......

I'm providing links from debunking 9/11 and 9/11 myths. They're not govt sponsored. And they were written in response to questions Cters have AFTER the PM article was written. LMAO .... again at the comprehension inability of the now reigning CT'er at ET.

Black, smoky fires? Have you ever seen plastic and/or other petroleum based products burn? Like the plastic used in computers, or petroleum used in rugs? Black smoke is TOTALLY inconclusive and has been thoroughly been shown to be total bs. LMAO at the utter stupidity you display here.

So I take it you agree that the fire was weak where Palmer's call came from. ANd on what floor was the fire "present"? Above him, perhaps? Certainly NOT on the same floor. LMAO......... Great lack of critical thinking again here Bitty.... It's so easy to tear your posts apart, i swear, you show such a clear lack of logical thinking ability and a lack of comprehension that it's pathetic.

Here's something about smoky fires, if you can even comprehend. Note the very last line before the link:

While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke
indicates nothing meaningful.
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

Picture of a black, smoky fire.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/BlackSmoke1.jpg

listen, u are going in circle here arguing about irrelevant facts: what it boils down to is that the fire were not hot enough to weaken steel and that is irrefutable since it was a special kind of steel designed to withstand temperatures of 2000-C for hours on end. even if that smoke is from computer equipment and there's no indication it really is it has no bearing on the fact steel should have survived it without a scratch. this is central to dismantle the case for a fire theory: the towers did not collapse cuz of fire. the consequence should be pretty obvious to anyone since now nobody cant refute that the govt/nist/fema was wrong and lied to us and we need a new investigation.

 

[Bitstream]

dont put statements in my mouth. i said that the hatred motive is very, very weak if compared to that of the govt. u bash us like we were some kind of lunatics when there are scores of respectable highly intelligent figures that view the 911 events the way i do. politicians, veteran cia/mi5 officers, governors, congressmen, senators, scientists and millions of concerned citizens all think the govt was complicit in 911. now, are we all bunkers? no, we are wise enough to figure out the world isnt black and white, good vs evil as your corrupt govt wants u to believe.

Quote from traderNik:

Not you, batgirl. No one here cares what you have to say.



Believe me, I used to think the same thing, but now I'm convinced otherwise. When you read statements like 'Islamic extremists have no reason to hate America' and 'go ahead and name one possible motive that Al Qaeda could have for attacking the US', you realize that the CTs here are actually the conceptual equivalent of the brainwashed young men and women who strap on the explosive vest and kill children in order to get serviced by 32 blonde virgins.

Interesting that CTs like Bitstream have essentially become apologists for Islamic terrorism.

 

[TorontoTrader2]

Geez what do real pilots know about flying heavy jets?

We must believe the government propaganda.


http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Bitstream:

dont put statements in my mouth. i said that the hatred motive is very, very weak if compared to that of the govt.

Quote from Bitstream:
u on the other hand wont ever be able to provide any shred of evidence for a motive, opportunity and actual proof it was those 14 arabs sent by obl. what was it, hatred for the american people?

Hmm... seems like you are saying it's silly to imagine that hatred America motivates Islamic terrorists.

Hmmm.....

As I have said, it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

This member now seems to be claiming that Islamic terrorists have a 'very very weak' motive for attacking the US and other freedom loving people.

Yes, I would characterize the resolve of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as 'very very weak'. I would characterize the resolve of the ranks of suicide bombers as 'very very weak'.

I would characterize the fanatical hatred that Shia Muslims have for Sunnis as 'very very weak'.

It's all weak. The only thing that's possible is that Jeb and Laura Bush were flying around in a black helicopter with the detonator box and gleefully pressed the button and watched the towers come down, secure in the knowledge that the Bush daughters had done their job well, wiring the towers for destruction, and that Grandpa George would soon be bringing in a new shipment of heroin from his South American base of operations.

The evidence for that is overwhelming, clearly.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from Bitstream:

those are govt sponsored link, period. and the writers of the debunking the miths are unkown people that refuse to say who they are. notice on their site there's no info whatsoever about who's running the site, who's the publisher, who's the administrator and so on. zip, nada, squat. the director even admitted he doesn't want to reveal his identity. this is not only highly suspicious but also doesn't lend any credibility since u cant check the background of those who claim to be experts. i mean, what have they got to hide? if u cant see the irony of it well, u are really lost.

listen, u are going in circle here arguing about irrelevant facts: what it boils down to is that the fire were not hot enough to weaken steel and that is irrefutable since it was a special kind of steel designed to withstand temperatures of 2000-C for hours on end. even if that smoke is from computer equipment and there's no indication it really is it has no bearing on the fact steel should have survived it without a scratch. this is central to dismantle the case for a fire theory: the towers did not collapse cuz of fire. the consequence should be pretty obvious to anyone since now nobody cant refute that the govt/nist/fema was wrong and lied to us and we need a new investigation.

A govt sponsored link? Prove it. Otherewise it's all crap assumptions, since I also wouldn't want to expose my id to all these CT nutterz. You ask, what's he got to hide, well, how about what's he got to lose...

So now the black, smoky fires, which you used as evidence to back the claim that the fires weren't that big , are now irrelevant? LMAO - you make a point, and when I TOTALLY destroy your evidence, it becomes an irrelevant fact.. ROTFLMMFAO at the sheer HYPOCRISY of you Bitstream....

 

[Bitstream]

the motive is weak compared to the that of the govt. how many times do i need to tell u that. are u not embarrassed to twist my quotes like that? did obl made a ton money on the attacks? who benefited immensely from the attacks, politically and financially...where is the opportunity. it is staggering anyone at least partially conscious of his country capabilities would think anyone would be able to override every single layer of defense of the most technologically advanced country in the world without the help of the secret service. this is just baloonie, pentagon is armed with missiles batteries and would shoot down everything deemed a threat miles away. people like u are dangerous and an obstacle to reach for the truth. u not only believe your govt's propaganda but defend it and actually have also praised censorship. disgusting.

Quote from traderNik:

As I have said, it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

This member now seems to be claiming that Islamic terrorists have a 'very very weak' motive for attacking the US and other freedom loving people.

Yes, I would characterize the resolve of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as 'very very weak'. I would characterize the resolve of the ranks of suicide bombers as 'very very weak'.

I would characterize the fanatical hatred that Shia Muslims have for Sunnis as 'very very weak'.

It's all weak. The only thing that's possible is that Jeb and Laura Bush were flying around in a black helicopter with the detonator box and gleefully pressed the button and watched the towers come down, secure in the knowledge that the Bush daughters had done their job well, wiring the towers for destruction, and that Grandpa George would soon be bringing in a new shipment of heroin from his South American base of operations.

The evidence for that is overwhelming, clearly.

 

[Bitstream]

i already gave u the links. and u cannot confirm the identity of those that wrote the recent ones u posted, therefore they are not credible sources. it could have been a high school drop out to write them as well as a govt source [more likely]. but there's no way to tell if it is the guy is qualified.

Quote from Haroki:

A govt sponsored link? Prove it. otherwise it's all crap assumptions, since I also wouldn't want to expose my id to all these CT nutterz. You ask, what's he got to hide, well, how about what's he got to lose...

So now the black, smoky fires, which you used as evidence to back the claim that the fires weren't that big , are now irrelevant? LMAO - you make a point, and when I TOTALLY destroy your evidence, it becomes an irrelevant fact.. ROTFLMMFAO at the sheer HYPOCRISY of you Bitstream....

this IS irrelevant. u haven't destroy shit, u haven't proven and never will be able to prove that fires were hot enough to weaken steel that is at the center of this argument: fire were obviously NOT big enough and didn't reach high temperatures as evidence suggests, regardless black smoke. in the end the towers should have stood. u cant single out the black smoke as the single most important factor in determine the temperatures. i asked u to prove RELEVANT evidence is made up, this has very little bearing in regards to the weakening of the steel and the collapse of the towers.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Bitstream:

are u not embarrassed to twist my quotes like that?

What in the hell are you talking about? I juxtaposed your two contradictory statements without editing them in any way!!! I simply made the most relevant text bold!!

What a weird fantasy world you live in, man... I swear. You seem to believe that if you just say something, it becomes true. Then if you say the opposite, you expect others to forget what you first said, and take the latest statement as the truth!

Sheesh...