Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

jfgordon1 · Oct 5, 2009

CrackerJax said:
I push no right wing agenda at all. I push logic and fiscal responsibility, that's all. That's not either left or right, that's just smart thinking.

I have a high activity rate for sure, but hey , you retire at 45 and get back to me. then I'll tell you how you can spend UR time.... k?

With success, brings privilege, in this case that privilege is MY time.

Congrats

and agreed.

You have the disinformation, not us. You make outrageous claims, not us. You seem to be consumed by it, not us.

That's the thing ... it's not that outrageous. The outrageous claims such as aliens and the devil being involved is what fucks up this whole "fight for truth".

We're only just sitting on the sidelines with popcorn and bongs, watching you all unravel.

Along with engineers and architects :blsmoke:

You deniers are the "bible thumpers"... "the 9/11 report said" "the 9/11 report said"

CrackerJax · Oct 5, 2009

I am not so quick to disregard the entire NYPD and NYFD and all the eyewitnesses to the event.

That's where the outrageous claims come in. It impunes the integrity of those that were there, risking their lives. If there was foul play, surely the NYFD and NYPD would have noticed it. After all, it was them personally that were there inside those nightmare buildings on fire.

They say it's not possible and have explained most of the 9/11 truther data. I'll stick with them.

So far, the conspiracy ppl have NO SMOKING GUN, just innuendo and reverse engineered theorems, which usually indicate a flawed methodology. this is no exception. :peace:

jfgordon1 · Oct 5, 2009

CrackerJax said:
I am not so quick to disregard the entire NYPD and NYFD and all the eyewitnesses to the event.

That's where the outrageous claims come in. It impunes the integrity of those that were there, risking their lives. If there was foul play, surely the NYFD and NYPD would have noticed it. After all, it was them personally that were there inside those nightmare buildings on fire.

They say it's not possible and have explained most of the 9/11 truther data. I'll stick with them.

i love you cracka... but quit talking out of your butt.

[youtube]SXD3bAbZCow[/youtube]

We truthers are not saying the PD and FD aren't heroes, because they were that day. They saved many lives.

You might want to check out this site. http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

CrackerJax · Oct 5, 2009

uhhhh, ur kidding right?

Those firefighters were using "descriptive" language. Not explicit language. You read into it what you want to, not what they actually inferred.

When someone says "as if" they don't mean that's what happened. They are merely using a term in which all ppl are familiar with.

There's a difference. A big one. Your interpretation it not logical.

GrowRebel · Oct 5, 2009

CrackerJax said:
I push no right wing agenda at all. I push logic and fiscal responsibility, that's all. That's not either left or right, that's just smart thinking.

I have a high activity rate for sure, but hey , you retire at 45 and get back to me. then I'll tell you how you can spend UR time.... k?

With success, brings privilege, in this case that privilege is MY time.

You have the disinformation, not us. You make outrageous claims, not us. You seem to be consumed by it, not us.

You should spend at least as many hours studying the psychology of conspiracy thinkers as you do reinforcing your delusion.

Yelling and constantly repeating urself only weakens your stance.

In the end GR, you are helping to disprove what you profess.

We're only just sitting on the sidelines with popcorn and bongs, watching you all unravel.

Bwaa ha ha ha ... now that is too funny! That's what I love about disinformationalists ... you deny the obvious and really expect us to believe you. Now that is too funny. I can never drink or eat reading your post, something might fly out of my nose from laughing so hard. :mrgreen:

So do they pay you by the hour or are you on salary? Must be a drag to have to be on line all day long everyday. :eyesmoke:

And if you are doing this for free ... you are a bigger :dunce:

than I took you for.
It doesn't really matter how much disinformation you post ... people are STILL going to demand a real investigation no matter how long it takes. The pressure is obviously working ...l see disinformation agents spending long hours on line trying to quell the truth ... too bad for you it's not working. :-|

jfgordon1 · Oct 5, 2009

CrackerJax said:
uhhhh, ur kidding right?

Those firefighters were using "descriptive" language. Not explicit language. You read into it what you want to, not what they actually inferred.

When someone says "as if" they don't mean that's what happened. They are merely using a term in which all ppl are familiar with.

There's a difference. A big one. Your interpretation it not logical.

Because they don't know anything about demolition. They put out fires for a living... don't take down buildings. They used "as if" because they don't know what happened...
(and i dont know what happened either)

GrowRebel · Oct 5, 2009

CrackerJax said:
uhhhh, ur kidding right?

Those firefighters were using "descriptive" language. Not explicit language. You read into it what you want to, not what they actually inferred.

When someone says "as if" they don't mean that's what happened. They are merely using a term in which all ppl are familiar with.

There's a difference. A big one. Your interpretation it not logical.

Oh yeah right ... just like the firefighters statements about hearing explosions way back on page 21 post 206, on page 34 post 339, F.D.N.Y. Craig Carlsen statement on page 64 post 630, page 148 post 1470, more firefighter statements of hearing explosions, and that just a few of the many reports I have posted in this thread about the firefighters statements that they heard explosions along with survivors ... it only a matter of "interpetation" when you are trying to push disinformation. :neutral:

CrackerJax · Oct 5, 2009

So you think gigantic buildings coming down wouldn't make explosion sounds?

No one has ever said, no eye witness rather, has ever said they heard explosions. The amount of explosions needed to take down those towers would have been DEAFENING....

Oh, but then you guys will now disregard your own argument of the explosions and switch back to nano thermite... right? :lol:

The sort of explosions needed would have blown windows out for blocks.... never happened. Seismic reading? Nope.

No explosions... not demolition explosions anyway. How many water heaters in that building by the way? Fire, water heater... boom.... how many?

What happens when high power cables are compromised? Ever hear two phases of electricity get crossed at high voltage? I have. Like a bomb.

You folks are delusional, or easily fooled. UR choice.

NoDrama · Oct 5, 2009

CrackerJax said:
uhhhh, ur kidding right?

Those firefighters were using "descriptive" language. Not explicit language. You read into it what you want to, not what they actually inferred.

When someone says "as if" they don't mean that's what happened. They are merely using a term in which all ppl are familiar with.

There's a difference. A big one. Your interpretation it not logical.

Yeah because " It was like they used detonators you know? Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom" yep thats not descriptive of demo at all, nope not at all, and when all those people said " Explosion" they really meant to say " Collapse" right? The interpretation is completely legitimate. We have evidence , you have nothing.

CrackerJax · Oct 5, 2009

They were trying to convey it in terms ppl would understand.

that guy went down as if a safe dropped on him. Now to you, it must mean a safe fell from somewhere.... :lol:

They were being asked general questions, they gave general answers. "As If" and "like" are not the same as "that was the cause".

But you guys keep reading between the lines of the book. You'll do fine until the class is tested on the material.

Keenly · Oct 6, 2009

Flight 93: the flight that supposedly brave passengers stood up against the hijackers, resulting in a crashed plane

the only problem is.... no plane wreckage.... no bodies...... no scheduled flight of flight 93 on 9/11

the county coroner said "to this day i have not seen a single drop of blood"

if there is no wreck.... no bodies.... no "missing" people from this flight...... why do we still think this happened?

it didnt...

to add more to the flight 93 mystery, cell phone calls were some how made at 30,000 feet

when this was tried again in a scientific study, at 30,000 feet the person doing the study had a 0.006 percent success rate in establishing a call

also, one of the people that called their mothers to say what what was happening said this

"hello mom? this is *full name*"

when was the last time you called your mom and said hi mom this is steven jobe or whatever your name is

also, in the same phone conversation, where he says the flight has been taken over, the voice asks the mother at least 4 time

"you believe me dont you mom?" "you believe me right?"

and the flight attendant that called 911 saying that 6 or so people were stabbed and dying... she doesnt sound like a woman watching people dying at all

her voice is calm...cool...collected...almost like she is reading it off of a peice of paper

or this? a camera sitting on a tripod....

at :20 seconds, the tripod shakes, and about 12 seconds later the building collapses

eyewitnesses testify this was another explosion, one of many

yet this is not listed in the official report.... why?

again, :20 seconds, an explosion rocks the ground, shaking the tripod which is on top of another building

[youtube]ZVDaAufKnLc[/youtube]

CrackerJax · Oct 6, 2009

Blah blah blah..... it's old stuff and has been answered.

No one piece of evidence can make your case. You need it ALL. If any part of your scenario is found wanting (and bunches are already), your theory falls apart.

Facts are you can't prove explosions took down the WTT's, no matter how many youtube's are made.

This is a dustbin issue to the American ppl.

Planes loaded with jet fuel slammed into the towers at over 500mph. That's the bottom line.

NoDrama · Oct 6, 2009

I always laugh when people say " Jet Fuel" As if saying it makes it a somehow volatile substance. Most people don't realize that Jet Fuel ( Or Jet-A) is actually in essence very dirty diesel fuel, it does not have a high octane rating , it has alot of waxes floating in it, sometimes they will add oxidizers to the fuel to increase high altittude operations. You could throw lit matches into a pool of jet fuel and most likely they would just extinguish themselves akin to throwing a match into a pool of water.The Octane rating of Jet fuel is somewhere in the area of 15 to 25. Gasoline(Mogas) is rated at 87-93 and Aviation fuel(aka AVGAS Which most people think is jet fuel) which can have an extremely volatile octane rating of 115-145.

Jet Fuel..not that big a deal.

Keenly · Oct 6, 2009

CrackerJax said:
Facts are you can't prove explosions took down the WTT's,

This is a dustbin issue to the American ppl.

you cant prove they didnt

and as long as i walk this earth there will always be people who dont think its such a dustbin issue

CrackerJax · Oct 7, 2009

I don't need to prove anything ... you do.

See how that works?

See why the 9/11 BS is going nowhere with the public?

Outrageous claims demand outrageous PROOF. A signed list and a bunch of reverse engineered theories is not even close to being proof.

wyteboi · Oct 7, 2009

CrackerJax said:
I don't need to prove anything ... you do.

See how that works?

See why the 9/11 BS is going nowhere with the public?

Outrageous claims demand outrageous PROOF. A signed list and a bunch of reverse engineered theories is not even close to being proof.

if your in THIS thread you are gonna need some proof to prove us wrong eh? Everytime someone brings up somthing new (to you) all you can say is: "its been debunked already" the problem is that you cannot provide ANY facts or evidence to prove us wrong...............If you not need to prove anything then why are you still here.... Are you talking to yourself ? you are sittin in a room with a bunch of "crazy's" or "truthers" (whatever you would like to call us) and you make an "outrageous" claim about 500mph and jet fuel but you have NO proof . you say NYPD and FD , i show you barry jennings and you....... say "its already been debunked"
I highly doubt crack gets paid for this disinfo cause his boss would be pissed and fire him by now. i would believe if someone was getting paid for somthing they would probably supply him with some real good evidence to PROVE us wrong....... but in cracks case he is just usin the same circular logic that he talks down on soooo much. :sleep:

NoDrama · Oct 7, 2009

We can't prove explosives took down the buildings just like you can't prove it was a collapse. Its a fucking mystery and there are so many things that don't add up and that is why we want another investigation.

wyteboi · Oct 7, 2009

NoDrama said:
We can't prove explosives took down the buildings just like you can't prove it was a collapse. Its a fucking mystery and there are so many things that don't add up and that is why we want another investigation.

And that is the bottom line.

Keenly · Oct 7, 2009

CrackerJax said:
I don't need to prove anything ... you do.

See how that works?

See why the 9/11 BS is going nowhere with the public?

Outrageous claims demand outrageous PROOF. A signed list and a bunch of reverse engineered theories is not even close to being proof.

a commission report that was set up to fail, ommitted several things, was not allowed to talk about certain things, started late, did not have enough funding, and 60% of commission report members have come out and said its false

thats not proof either

if you have nothing to refute what we are saying... that makes us wrong?

can i buy some weed from you?

wyteboi · Oct 7, 2009

i was reading a yahoo headline and came across this :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091007/ts_nm/us_afghanistan_taliban_anniversary

and if you dont wanna click on it then this is the main part i wanna point out

In the statement, the Taliban said the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan for its refusal to hand over al Qaeda leaders, was hasty and unjustified. Washington had not given leaders of the movement any proof to show the involvement of al Qaeda in the September 11 attacks, it said.
Washington was using the so-called war on terror in Afghanistan and in Iraq as part of its expansionist goals in the Middle East, central and southeast Asia, it said.

Now what is so hard to understand about why we would like a new investigation?
That makes us "theorist"? <---not 100% sure what that word means , so im not one of those bongsmilie

That makes us "delusional" ? <--- no , i am not that far gone yet... bongsmilie

i mean fuck they cant even show al qaeda proof that al qaeda caused 911 ?

(by the way , i got this from yahoo news so the story might be accurate it might not be..... its the news :roll:

and i do not believe everything told to me , whether it be utube or mainstream media)

Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Keenly

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Keenly

Guest

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Keenly

Guest

Well-Known Member