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

GrowRebel · Jun 7, 2009

what... huh? said:
btw...

Who the FCUK is Gage?

Give me links, not an e-social structure. I don't care who you text for whatever purposes... I wan't links... not screen names.

Gage is one of many scientists that make you look stupid that who he is ... and if you'd bother to look through the thread you would see the links to Mr. Gage ... but because you are a dummy and I love the opportuinty of showing our folks at home that you are I will once again provide the links...

We will be waiting for you to dispute the facts of an engineer ... can't wait. :blsmoke:

what... huh? · Jun 7, 2009

GrowRebel said:
Oh yeah I did ... I refuted your PM bullshit ... I gave you the Gage's presentation which you refuse to address, but we all know it's because you can't ... you come back with the same blowing it out you ass ... but that's fine ... it's just supports what I say about you.

Again... I don't know who Gage is. Post a link and I will address it. I have tried to address everything you have posted on... but you seem incapable of keeping track of your own "beliefs" so I will say... in no uncertain terms... ONE AT A TIME. Start with your best and work backwards. Oh... and I need links... not names. Their names are no more important to me than yours. Facts.

GrowRebel said:
You put up a picture of some bridge with twisted steel ... give no information on what happen to said bridge and expect us to excepted as evidence that fire can melt steel? .... not.

I previously stated that I can give you any information you like about that specific event. It was in California on a highway overpass in the East Bay's MacArthur Maze (I580). A tanker going too fast overturned and ignited gasoline underneath the overpass, causing the steel (not steal) beams and bolts which secured them to melt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Maze

This is precisely my point. You refuse to accept fact, science, or evidence contrary to your beliefs... which in case you didn't know, is pretty much how fundamentalism works.

GrowRebel said:
Once you address the evidence I have posted then I will go over the bullshit PM report you posted.

I have addressed quite a large volume of evidence. You have yet to respond to ANY of it. Fuck your false piety. Address ONE issue, and I will too. You suck at multiplicity.

GrowRebel said:
When did I say the flight maps were a lie? I said the flight path were given in my link.

When did I say you said the flight maps were a lie? I demonstrated "restricted airspace". You can make up whatever fantasies you like about "secure airspace" outside of Restricted Airspace. If it makes you feel safer that the government protects ALL national interests including chinatown... that's great. Link me.

GrowRebel said:
there is no proof you can show me other than in an open public independent non partisan hearing with people sworn under oath providing credible evidence that what happen that day happen the way they said. Until that day as far as I'm concern the evidence that 911 was an inside job is obvious ... and I have lots of "loon" "mental case" "under achievers company here and overseas, heads of state, academic institutions, and intelligent agents.

LMAO. You don't know any intel agents. Complete phucking lie. You are a liar. Or they are liars and you are so sadly willing to believe that you now strike pity from me. Are these "online intel agent friends?" I will choose to believe you are a liar. The alternative is so pathetic that I feel bad for engaging you.

GrowRebel said:
No ... I FAITH FACTS and the OBVIOUS ... you rational side ... bwaa ha ha ha ... that's funny ... I like you.

Again... not english. You know... you can pretend from here to tomorrow that I have not provided evidence... but there it is... on these pages.

How much of your evidence have I addressed?

How much of mine have you?

God I love simple math. You cannot revise history as it happens friend.

Link me to Gage... patroned Saint of the delusional... and I will de-construct whatever you like.

olosto · Jun 7, 2009

I don't believe I ever said WTC #7 was hit by a plane. Where did you get that? WTC 7 when down because of debris impacting it, i mean look at the fucking thing. And buildings unless knocked over come down in their own foot print. I know demo teams want to act like its some miracle they perform but a building wants to fall straight down. What forces are going to make it topple over the side? None.. If the supports weaken from the inside its gunna slam down sloor on floor like it did. It looks smooth but inside that thing was crushing itself like an aluminum can from the top down. There were no forces to push it over so it fell straight down.

Also I offered some real arguements complete with physics to explain. Here is a link (its the first on when you put in glass made by metoerite impact) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061221-egypt-glass.html . I guess science just made that one up. Are you shitting me that you do not know about frictional heat caused by impact? Fuck you are back woods...

what... huh? · Jun 7, 2009

wtf do you not understand about 1 at a time?

For the record... the first link you posted to Gage is two hours. It will take me some time. Thus far (7 min in) it has yet to proclaim a fact except that the buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds... which is incorrect according to your own posts.

I interrupt my watching only to ask the question... how many lies before you decide he is not truthful? Or do you have a SINGLE piece of evidence (which I have asked for again and again) that you would like to discuss?

I will continue to watch and take notes... but it begs the question that if this is for "truth"... where does one lie find its place? The great thing about the truth, is that you don't have to work around it. It simply is.

So... what is the lies to "fact" ratio which demonstrates to YOU a willingness to mislead? Why are all of the 9 books from this guy about politics and NOT engineering if you post him as a "scientific expert" on the subject? Just curious.

** edit

If you claim this guy to be the defacto 9/11 guru... can I use HIS claims to dispute all of the other conspiracists who promote "facts" contrary to his? Or on the outset, are you willing to accept that this guy is wrong about things?

Either way... I'm good.

NoDrama · Jun 7, 2009

olosto said:
I don't believe I ever said WTC #7 was hit by a plane. Where did you get that? WTC 7 when down because of debris impacting it, i mean look at the fucking thing. And buildings unless knocked over come down in their own foot print. I know demo teams want to act like its some miracle they perform but a building wants to fall straight down. What forces are going to make it topple over the side? None.. If the supports weaken from the inside its gunna slam down sloor on floor like it did. It looks smooth but inside that thing was crushing itself like an aluminum can from the top down. There were no forces to push it over so it fell straight down.

Also I offered some real arguements complete with physics to explain. Here is a link (its the first on when you put in glass made by metoerite impact) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061221-egypt-glass.html . I guess science just made that one up. Are you shitting me that you do not know about frictional heat caused by impact? Fuck you are back woods...

Meteors did it, you truly must be wearing a triple layer of tin foil if you think meteors did it.

WTC7 came down from debris, yep it was designed to take full frontal MULTIPLE hits from AIRLINERS, yet a few little bricks got crushed and a gash in the facade and its all over for the building and the most amazing part is how the undamaged sections broke first, physics would tell you that it would fall in the direction of the most damage, but it didn't at all. You should try chopping a tree down sometime and let me know if it falls into its own footprint.

let me show you what happens to buildings that fall, they tip over, not fall into themselves, the main support columns can support 10 times the mass they do support and they are in the middle of the building, its not designed like a tin can with just a steel shell, the main support is the interior of the building.

let me give you the "Official " Explanation of how WTC #7 fell, now mind you this is the "Official" Government stance and I am just going to cut and paste it for you so there won't be any confusion.

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

Yep the unlimited government resources just couldn't come up with a plausible scenario, so they didn't even try, they basically just said " We don't have any idea what could have caused that" But you Oh great Olosto have already figured it out, caused by falling office furniture and paperwork and the occasional body that jumped out of a tower. The NYFD just minutes before the building collapsed said it was very minor damage, I tend to believe the folks that were on site and not some fantasy event made up by the gubbermint.

olosto · Jun 7, 2009

The pic you are showing.. The building fell because there was an issue with the ground. The structure was sound, the ground gave way. There are your sideways forces. Take away the ground giving way and toppling a building does not happen (again without some outside force), simple physics.

And you are a fucking moron if you somehow think i implied that metors had something to do with it. It just so happens that the easiest way to see how impact friction works is to look at a metoir (That was my site, how did you get metiors hitting a building from an example of impact friction??). Any high speed object hitting anotherr object creates an amount of impact friction. Do you dispute this?

olosto · Jun 7, 2009

NoDrama said:
Meteors did it, you truly must be wearing a triple layer of tin foil if you think meteors did it.

WTC7 came down from debris, yep it was designed to take full frontal MULTIPLE hits from AIRLINERS, .

Meteors pfft.. your a fucking moron again..
About wtc7 was it designed to take the impact of wtc1 and 2 falling on and around it?

NoDrama · Jun 7, 2009

what... huh? said:
What it DID have that no other did was two of the LARGEST structures in history fall on it.

and here is the shot you won't see from 9/11 conspiracists...

Here is the video log of your "tiny fires". Go ahead. Watch. Won't hurt.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debunking911.com%2Fpull.htm&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
ALLRIGHT GOD DAMNIT SOMEONE TELL ME HOW TO POST EMBEDDED YOUTUBE VIDEOS!!!

Damn it all. "How does one building fall because of damage and one not?" How does one guy get shot and live and the other not? Law of chaos. Why are they pulling buildings if they could just have easily be explained by demo?

but wait... here is my favorite... how do these buildings... on multiple floors not BLOW THEIR PLANTED ORDINANCES as suggested while engulfed in flame.

Please give me the TYPE of ordinance which does not burn, yet ignites.

Anybody.

Seriously.

I am not WANTING to believe one side or the other. I am not affiliated with the government in any way. I simply disagree given the same evidence. I am also not a retard. You are just gonna have to deal with that fact... and if you actually FAITH your belief... you are going to have to fight for it. As will I.

The last thing I will say to No Drama about this post is the following...

None of the buildings you show are in any way comparable to WTC 1&2. Nothing much else is.

How many buildings do I need to show you like 7 that fall?

Would 1 disprove your theory?

2?

How many of the same weight and class as 7 which did fall would you accept in order to be wrong?

This is going to be extremely easy to reply to. first of all the towers did not fall on #7, your picture clearly refutes your own argument, I can clearly see #7 sitting there barely scratched, no fires nothing falling apart.

You have NO experience with explosives, this is clear from your own statement. ANYONE that has experience with HE(High Explosive) knows that most modern explosives can BURN all fucking day long and not explode. Modern explosives need 2 things to blow up, pressure and heat. I have personally taken a 1/4 pound stick of C4 and lit it on fire, it burns really well and is great for a quick fire in wet/damp conditions. You might be able to get it to blow if you were to hit it with great force while it burned, but its really really safe stuff.

Now show me even 1 building ( DO NOT SHOW me towers 1&2) that is a steel reinforced skyscraper that has fallen into its own footprint by means other than demolition/natural disaster. You can't because it has never happened and that is a well known fact jack! Fire has never brought a steel building down, well except on 9-11 where it happened 3 times all in the same area...a 1 in a quadrillion billion trillion chance of ever happening again in any universe anywhere, even in bizarro world them things don't come down.

I am not refuting that an airliner flying into a building wasn't a horrible act, nor that it caused a great deal of damage, but the building was engineered to take that kind of a hit and survive. Other skyscrapers have been hit by airplanes also, the empire state has been hit with a B-25 bomber and that plane was full of AV gas ( Aviation fuel) which is many many times more volatile than jet A ( Jet A is less refined than diesel fuel and does not readily burn well) as it has an octane rating of 115+. Guess what? You probably already guessed, didn't come down.

NoDrama · Jun 7, 2009

olosto said:
Meteors pfft.. your a fucking moron again..
About wtc7 was it designed to take the impact of wtc1 and 2 falling on and around it?

So what your telling me is that the building fell so fast that it created friction enough to melt glass? Meteors hit objects at 11 Kilometers /Second, that's the equivalent of 25,000 miles per hour. Free fall speed of a brick is about 120 MPH , so unless you can find a way to convince me that gravity worked differently that day your friction theory has been blown out of the water.

what... huh? · Jun 7, 2009

Binary? You referring to binary?

How the hell do you do a precision timed demo in front of the world with binary?

NoDrama · Jun 7, 2009

olosto said:
Meteors pfft.. your a fucking moron again..
About wtc7 was it designed to take the impact of wtc1 and 2 falling on and around it?

If you look at a map of battery park and the WTC grounds you will notice that WTC #7 is on the other side of the 2 towers, none of the other buildings hit by debris were felled, just this one. Must be that "law of Chaos" that is so convenient to use instead of just saying " I don't know because science can't explain it".

NoDrama · Jun 7, 2009

what... huh? said:
Binary? You referring to binary?

How the hell do you do a precision timed demo in front of the world with binary?

No Im talking about the VAST MAJORITY of explosives used for demolition. Put on your reading glasses, I specifically state what kind of explosives burn and do not explode. No one said anything about Binary. You never heard of C4 or something? Plastic explosive? you think C4 is binary? No wonder you got all your facts messed up.

olosto · Jun 7, 2009

NoDrama said:
So what your telling me is that the building fell so fast that it created friction enough to melt glass? Meteors hit objects at 11 Kilometers /Second, that's the equivalent of 25,000 miles per hour. Free fall speed of a brick is about 120 MPH , so unless you can find a way to convince me that gravity worked differently that day your friction theory has been blown out of the water.

Do you even bother to read posts or do you just make shit up? I explained that the impact from the plane generated significant impact friction and gave examples of how metoerites make glass when they impact from the frictional heat caused by the impact. I was making the point that the av gas fire plus this additiona heat should be more than enough heat to melt the beams not to mention the plane slicing thru like butter. I can't believe you don't even read peoples posts and just make shit up. No wonder why you believe this shit, you just hear what you want to.

olosto · Jun 7, 2009

NoDrama said:
If you look at a map of battery park and the WTC grounds you will notice that WTC #7 is on the other side of the 2 towers, none of the other buildings hit by debris were felled, just this one. Must be that "law of Chaos" that is so convenient to use instead of just saying " I don't know because science can't explain it".

look at those pictures.. Are you telling me that the collapsed buildings did not touch building 7 in any way and it came down while in perfect condition because of a controlled explosive event? NO WAY!

GrowRebel · Jun 8, 2009

what... huh? said:
Again... I don't know who Gage is. Post a link and I will address it. I have tried to address everything you have posted on... but you seem incapable of keeping track of your own "beliefs" so I will say... in no uncertain terms... ONE AT A TIME. Start with your best and work backwards. Oh... and I need links... not names. Their names are no more important to me than yours. Facts.

Again I told you who he is ... and I posted a link ... how convenient for you not to find it ... even though the link is clear as day. Yeah you tried ... and each time you fail ... with your stupid side steps ... "where's the link" "the information is a lie" "the information is incorrect" "you haven't answered my questions" ... you go on and on with the same avoiding the questions. It's doesn't work and only make you look :dunce:

what... huh? said:
I previously stated that I can give you any information you like about that specific event. It was in California on a highway overpass in the East Bay's MacArthur Maze (I580). A tanker going too fast overturned and ignited gasoline underneath the overpass, causing the steel (not steal) beams and bolts which secured them to melt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Maze

I don't want your information I want the link to the story with the information as to what happen. What part of that don't you get? Sorry but I'm not going to take you at your word ... I want that link.

what... huh? said:
This is precisely my point. You refuse to accept fact, science, or evidence contrary to your beliefs... which in case you didn't know, is pretty much how fundamentalism works.

No I refuse to accept a picture with no link no story as evidence or science. Everyone sees your side stepping game ... it doesn't fly here ... you only continue to make yourself look foolish.

what... huh? said:
I have addressed quite a large volume of evidence. You have yet to respond to ANY of it. Fuck your false piety. Address ONE issue, and I will too. You suck at multiplicity.

You haven't address anything ... you only claim to have ... there is a difference ... I know the bushwhacked can't comprehend that ... but I'm not concerned with that ... I'm only care about showing the folks at home how ridiculous you people are nothing more.
I've address one issue ... you addressing Gage's video ... you refuse to do so ... why ... because you can't.

what... huh? said:
When did I say you said the flight maps were a lie? I demonstrated "restricted airspace". You can make up whatever fantasies you like about "secure airspace" outside of Restricted Airspace. If it makes you feel safer that the government protects ALL national interests including chinatown... that's great. Link me.

When did you said I said the map were a lie ... why right here ...

what... huh? said:
Here is the fundamental problem with us arguing. I show you flight maps, readily available to all pilots, before and after 9/11... and because I disagree with you... you simply dismiss them as "lies" because they are contrary to your prior concept.

Remember now? ... I know that if a plane goes off course NORAD is called and I know it not some fantasy maybe for you ...

what... huh? said:
LMAO. You don't know any intel agents. Complete phucking lie. You are a liar. Or they are liars and you are so sadly willing to believe that you now strike pity from me. Are these "online intel agent friends?" I will choose to believe you are a liar. The alternative is so pathetic that I feel bad for engaging you.

Once again caught blowing it out ... I don't lie ... I post facts ... with source links ... unlike you ...
http://911lies.org/former_gov_officials_speak_openly_911.htmlhttp://911lies.org/former_gov_officials_speak_openly_911.html[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2F911lies.org%2Fformer_gov_officials_speak_openly_911.html&ei=yJ8sSseqNITWMOK12OIJ&rct=j&q=%22former+CIA%22+%22911%22&usg=AFQjCNECYkqSASrx4lA0tegypXNdW47_Tw"]Former CIA and top official speak openly about 911[/url]
The caliber and status of those publicly acknowledging inconsistencies with the official version of the 911 commission report is staggering. After you read the names and consider their expertise, and / or position in society.
Yes it would be must easier for you to choose I'm a liar than accept that you are :dunce:

again no surprises there. :mrgreen:

what... huh? said:
Again... not english. You know... you can pretend from here to tomorrow that I have not provided evidence... but there it is... on these pages.

and you can pretend from here until tomorrow that you've provided evidence that is credible ... you haven't because you can't. You are not fooling anyone with your side stepping ... it may work on faux and corporate news but that shit with not fly here. Deal with it.

what... huh? said:
How much of your evidence have I addressed?

None ... and in my last post I asked you to list the 12 points you made proving me wrong ... you haven't ... I wonder why?

what... huh? said:
How much of mine have you?

I've address every bull shit report you posted.

what... huh? said:
God I love simple math. You cannot revise history as it happens friend.

Then why the hell don't you follow it? And you can't cover up the truth and facts with side step and bullshit answers. Not while I can post.

what... huh? said:
Link me to Gage... patroned Saint of the delusional... and I will de-construct whatever you like.

Like I said ... I did in my last post ... but we are not the least bit surprise you didn't see it ... might as well not ... you will only embarrass yourself ... again. :sleep:

GrowRebel · Jun 8, 2009

what... huh? said:
wtf do you not understand about 1 at a time?

WTF don't you understand about that's what I'm doing?

what... huh? said:
For the record... the first link you posted to Gage is two hours. It will take me some time. Thus far (7 min in) it has yet to proclaim a fact except that the buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds... which is incorrect according to your own posts.

No it's not ... the first link to Gage is 7:30 ... the two hour link is for those that are interested in further information. 10 sec, 15 ... the fact remains the buildings are design to withstand what happen. They don't come crashing down in their own footprint in a few sec. after burn less than 2 hours.

what... huh? said:
I interrupt my watching only to ask the question... how many lies before you decide he is not truthful? Or do you have a SINGLE piece of evidence (which I have asked for again and again) that you would like to discuss?

Again just what has he stated that was a lie? Be specific. You always blow it out about the lies ... yet you can never state what the lies are ... I wonder why? And yes there is evidence of thermite at the site ... Gage's discuss it in his 7 minute video.

what... huh? said:
I will continue to watch and take notes... but it begs the question that if this is for "truth"... where does one lie find its place? The great thing about the truth, is that you don't have to work around it. It simply is.

Spare us the taking notes ... you know there is a shorter video ... you are just side stepping ... the fact is you are blowing it ... nothing more.

what... huh? said:
So... what is the lies to "fact" ratio which demonstrates to YOU a willingness to mislead? Why are all of the 9 books from this guy about politics and NOT engineering if you post him as a "scientific expert" on the subject? Just curious.

** edit

Side stepping again I see ... what does this have to do with the video? Nothing. Just can't dispute it so you have to think up some other shit ... like I said this isn't faux news ... you can't get away with the side step here ...
folks at home notice how many posts I have asking him about Gage ... and notice how he continues to avoid addressing the 7 min video that I linked? This is all he has ... watch ... he'll keep it up ... hoping that if he does it enough you will accepted it. The same concept his bushwhacked leader believe.

what... huh? said:
If you claim this guy to be the defacto 9/11 guru... can I use HIS claims to dispute all of the other conspiracists who promote "facts" contrary to his? Or on the outset, are you willing to accept that this guy is wrong about things?

Either way... I'm good.

Yawn ... we are still waiting. He sure is taking a long time isn't he folks ... watch him take longer ...
Well kids the work week has stated ... if I have time in the evenings to post I will. If not ... I see you next weekend. :-|

GrowRebel · Jun 8, 2009

NoDrama said:
So what your telling me is that the building fell so fast that it created friction enough to melt glass? Meteors hit objects at 11 Kilometers /Second, that's the equivalent of 25,000 miles per hour. Free fall speed of a brick is about 120 MPH , so unless you can find a way to convince me that gravity worked differently that day your friction theory has been blown out of the water.

NoDrama ...you rock ... you run rings around these guys ... there will never comprehend it though ... but at least the folks at home can see just how whacked out they truly are.

Did you notice they couldn't produce another building that fell like the towers? Told ya. :mrgreen:

Feel free to comment at any time ... great links by the way ... thanks. :clap:

olosto · Jun 8, 2009

I was talking to my wife about this thread and she made a great comment, "Argueing with stupid people is not going to make them any smarter." Im done here. You just make shit up and mis quote people, and the then tard gallery high fives each other, lol

Peace & Remember the world is going to end in 2012 anyway so buckle up your tin foil hat!

lol

what... huh? · Jun 8, 2009

NoDrama said:
No Im talking about the VAST MAJORITY of explosives used for demolition. Put on your reading glasses, I specifically state what kind of explosives burn and do not explode. No one said anything about Binary. You never heard of C4 or something? Plastic explosive? you think C4 is binary? No wonder you got all your facts messed up.

The problem with being a jackass about stuff... is that when you are wrong... it sucks extra special.

This is gonna sting a little.

C4 has an autoignition temperature of 200 deg c and is indeed flammable.

See... I do know a little bit about boom boom.

Now if you were just pleasant you wouldn't look like such a jackass now.

http://www.rmisonline.com/chemicaldatabase/ViewInfo1.aspx?SID=98

what... huh? · Jun 8, 2009

GrowRebel said:
I don't want your information I want the link to the story with the information as to what happen. What part of that don't you get? Sorry but I'm not going to take you at your word ... I want that link.

Um... Jackass... there is a link in the quote. Wikified for your protection.

GrowRebel said:
No I refuse to accept a picture with no link no story as evidence or science. Everyone sees your side stepping game ... it doesn't fly here ... you only continue to make yourself look foolish.

Lol... the only "stories" you have linked, with very rare exception, are not recognized or accredited papers... they are jackasses like you, sitting in their basements blogging on how the gubbament is comin' for em for spreading THE TRUTH!!! lol.

GrowRebel said:
When did you said I said the map were a lie ... why right here ...

So you acknowledge you were wrong, and will stop saying so in the future?

GrowRebel said:
Remember now? ... I know that if a plane goes off course NORAD is called and I know it not some fantasy maybe for you ...

That is incorrect. They must be off course with no contact for 5 minutes. More importantly we have to know they are off course... and they rarely know. Then usually the pilot is alerted, and course is corrected. Even around the pentagon. They don't just call in the guns.

GrowRebel said:
Once again caught blowing it out ... I don't lie ... I post facts ... with source links ... unlike you ...

You link me to liars... you promote lies... and you continue to call ME a liar... what have I lied about? I mean... I don't even see anything I have been incorrect about. Let me guess... I am in on it too. I'm one of them.[/quote]

GrowRebel said:
and you can pretend from here until tomorrow that you've provided evidence that is credible ... you haven't because you can't. You are not fooling anyone with your side stepping ... it may work on faux and corporate news but that shit with not fly here. Deal with it.

Every piece of evidence I have demonstrated has been credible, and you haven't addressed any of it.

GrowRebel said:
None ... and in my last post I asked you to list the 12 points you made proving me wrong ... you haven't ... I wonder why?

Because re-reading your posts is like drilling my own knees with a masonry bit on slow. You can't even speak the language... no wonder you get confused so easily. Read over the last 5 pages and count for yourself. It just wastes my time, telling you what I already told you.

GrowRebel said:
I've address every bull shit report you posted.

Not a single one. Nothing. Nil.

GrowRebel said:
Then why the hell don't you follow it? And you can't cover up the truth and facts with side step and bullshit answers. Not while I can post.

You can barely post at that. I have addressed quite a bit... the problem is much of this is complicated. These problems require more discussion than you are willing to give them... you just keep linking me to youtube videos as if these wing nuts are in ANY way credible. STOP LINKING ME TO PEOPLE WHO ARE LYING... BLATANTLY... AND ACTING AS IF THEY ARE CREDIBLE. It isn't much wonder that you do not understand credibility.

GrowRebel said:
Like I said ... I did in my last post ... but we are not the least bit surprise you didn't see it ... might as well not ... you will only embarrass yourself ... again.

Gotta say... don't feel the slightest bit embarrassed. Even if the planets were to realign and you were able to convince me I am wrong... I wouldn't be embarrassed. That is all very important to you... you cannot have a discussion without being an asshole... because you don't really care about being right... you want to win.

You won't. You will continue to come across as a wackjob with an attitude and problems with authority.

I really hope you are young.

On the subject of time intercepting with jets... you don't understand a very simple concept. I cannot prove a negative. I can say, for instance, that there is not a pink elephant in your room. I cannot PROVE it. The onus of proof is on you. I have exhausted every resource I have looking for any interception in history which breached 45 min, and there is no such record. The onus is on you to disprove MY statement... because you cannot prove a negative. Do you understand?

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

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member