Was 9/11 a cover-up or an inside job?

[stundie]

Originally Posted by Colonel

Blather on, but can you prove what you said about the banning?

Yes or no?

Who needs proof when you have blind faith Colonel.

You know, the very same blind faith you have in the official story?? lol

The difference being, is I have not seen any evidence from you or the mods to show my faith is wrong to suggest that Heiwa was banned to silence him for not following groupthink.

Where you have been shown evidence from all the available witness statements and interviews including Dick Cheney himself that shows you are wrong!

Anyway, I'll sit back and await the offending posts/threads which should be a piece of piss to find, to show me why I'm wrong.

Or shall we just say, you do not want to post the posts/thread because as I've stated, the mods banned him for no particular reason and fobbed your gullible ass off with a lame excuse which you, in your best impression of a lemming just accepted it!!

[Colonel]

Originally Posted by stundie

Who needs proof when you have blind faith Colonel.

Yeah, you have it, all right. A terminal case of it as demonstrated here again.

Originally Posted by stundie

Anyway, I'll sit back and await the offending posts/threads which should be a piece of piss to find, to show me why I'm wrong.

Typical Truther.

1. Make a claim

2. Fail to back it up with evidence

3. Demand of others to prove you were wrong.

Actually, it was his last two posts (easily simple to find) where he was warned first (while on probation) not to bring up his challenge in yet another thread since he had been tolerated about it multiple times before and in his very next post, he did it again. He violated their rules. That is why he was banned. He had been warned not to do it, but he did it anyway. They have strict rules there. I used to live in Venezuela but I would never go back there and openly defy Hugo unless I want to get myself in trouble.

Heiwa's "challenge" thread continues to remain as part of the JREF record. Only an ignorant tool can believe he was "silenced", but there are plenty of halfwits on that team. If one's intent is to "silence" another, how do you explain the fact that what he had been posting repetitively is still there for all the world to see? A Truther never takes their claims to the next level.

"Silenced"

What a paranoid world is yours.

Thanks for playing, Stundie, and believe me - you did exceed my expectations of Truther stupidity.

[Glennn]

Colonel,

Why is it that when I use the word "observe," you insist on changing its meaning? The definition of observe is "to look at." You have changed it to "look at, analyze, and theorize." You are wrong.

It is true that people observed three WTCs falling in the same manner as buildings brought down by controlled demolition. It is also true that people observed nano-thermite in the dust from the 9/11 rubble. It is also true that NIST did not test for explosives at the scene. Taken together, these three facts are more curious than when taken individually. So, more observation is required. According to you, however, the desire for further observation is an indication that one has begun the slow but sure downward spiral into Trutherism.

I do agree with you about how things are not always as they seem. Absolutely!

[stundie]

Originally Posted by Colonel

1. Make a claim

LIke Heiwa being banned for either a rule 6 or 11 depending on which mod you believe.

Originally Posted by Colonel

2. Fail to back it up with evidence

Like failing to back it up with the offending posts.

Originally Posted by Colonel

3. Demand of others to prove you were wrong.

Like demanding I prove you wrong!



Hilarious double standards. You are an ironic yet moronic genius!!

Still waiting for the posts, go find them if they are simple to find.

So go fetch rover!!

[Colonel]

Originally Posted by Glennn

Why is it that when I use the word "observe," you insist on changing its meaning? The definition of observe is "to look at." You have changed it to "look at, analyze, and theorize." You are wrong.

Hardly. You have a curious definition of "observe" as evidenced in your next paragraph.

Originally Posted by Glennn

It is true that people observed three WTCs falling in the same manner as buildings brought down by controlled demolition.

Did they? Was it just because the towers "fell" straight down and not "over" or didn't explode into smithereens? Is that why it "appeared" to be a CD? How many videos of CD's did you ever analyze prior to 9/11, I mean really sit down and look at other than the marvel of seeing them just drop straight down? I never did before 9/11. But now I realize that a CD doesn't come from top down, that buildings are gutted , window panes/panels removed, and the noise - there would have been a tremendous noise that would have been captured on seismological graphs in the area. It is not accurate to state that people observed three WTCs falling in the same manner as buildings brought down by controlled demolition. It was not in the same manner at all.

Originally Posted by Glennn

It is also true that people observed nano-thermite in the dust from the 9/11 rubble.

Oh, really? How does one "observe" nano-thermite in dust?

"Hey, Dr. Jones - lookee here at this dust."

"Whatcha got there, Stundie?"

"I don't know - it's some kinda red chips."

By Gawd, Stundie - what you're holding there is nano-thermite."

Even Dr. Jones did some form of rudimentary analysis of the dust bunnies that were sent to him. He didn't just "look at it" - he analyzed and did some very elaborate theorizing about how it was applied.

Originally Posted by Glennn

It is also true that NIST did not test for explosives at the scene.

So why should they have? No deafening explosions, no seismological record, no evidence of CD materials in the debris. So why should they test for explosives? They didn't test for volcanic lava either because there was no reason to do so.

Originally Posted by Glennn

Taken together, these three facts are more curious than when taken individually.

What is curious to me is that these are subjects that have been dealt with a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Glennn

So, more observation is required. According to you, however, the desire for further observation is an indication that one has begun the slow but sure downward spiral into Trutherism.

Not that kind of "observation" - anyone that gives credibility to those three points today already abides in Twooferville. Sorry, but somebody had to say it. You can always come back when you are ready. It's not an unwashable stain.

Originally Posted by Glennn

I do agree with you about how things are not always as they seem. Absolutely!

Ask me sometime in the future when you are no longer irritated with me about Ouija boards, ghosts, UFO's, or de Lawd. I used to dwell so far down the rabbit hole that I couldn't even smell their pellets.

[Colonel]

Originally Posted by stundie

LIke Heiwa being banned for either a rule 6 or 11 depending on which mod you believe.
Like failing to back it up with the offending posts.

Still searching for a way out of the paper bag, Stundie?

Keep on. My abs are getting harder.

[Glennn]

Colonel,

Yes, people observed nano-thermite in the dust of the 9/11 rubble. When they examined the dust, they observed nano-thermite. And yes, people observed the WTCs collapsing in the same manner as buildings being brought down by controlled demolition.

You claim that the collapses of the WTCs did not resemble controlled demolitions, and that there were no explosions. However, your opinion is at odds with firefighters and others who were at the scene. Listen to what they say about explosions and flashes of light that circled the lower outer walls of the WTC. They even comment on how the flashes and explosions were just like what you see and hear when a building is being brought down in a controlled manner.
http://www.911proof.com/11.html

[stundie]

Originally Posted by Colonel

Still searching for a way out of the paper bag, Stundie?

Keep on. My abs are getting harder.

Typical Colonel Failure.........

1. Make a claim
2. Fail to back it up with evidence
3. Demand of others to prove you were wrong.

Keep up the debunking!!!

[Glennn]

Colonel,

I forgot to ask you why you believe I am irritated with you about Ouija boards, ghosts, and UFOs. I don't recall any such converstations with you.

[IamJoseph]

January 26, 2010 Clip No. 2376

Lebanese Journalist Hassan Hamada: US Artificially Caused Haiti Earthquake

Following are excerpts from an interview with Lebanese journalist Hassan Hamada, which aired on NBN TV on January 26, 2010.



Hassan Hamada: The world has entered a stage in which earthquakes are used as warfare. It is called "seismic warfare" – waging war by means of natural earthquakes.



Interviewer: Yes.



Hassan Hamada: We have entered the stage of man-made earthquakes, get it? What happened in Haiti may have been a very successful experiment in artificial warfare.



Interviewer: What does that mean?



Hassan Hamada: It means that what happened in Haiti...



Interviewer: Wasn't it a regular earthquake, a force majeure?



Hassan Hamada: No. It was an earthquake, but an artificial one. Obviously.



Interviewer: It wasn't a force majeure kind of an earthquake?



Hassan Hamada: No, an artificial one.



Interviewer: Are you sure?



Hassan Hamada: In all likelihood.



[...]



At that time... The entire area of the Haitian coastline is protected by the US Navy, and in particular, by SOUTHCOM – just like they have CENTCOM here. This is the Southern Command of the US Army – in South America. The Fourth Fleet that the Americans reestablished is in SOUTHCOM. This fleet defends the territorial waters of Haiti. It's all a charade.



At that time, they were conducting drills – under what name? Every drill has a name. It was called: "Rescue Efforts Following an Earthquake That Will Hit Haiti." It's very strange.



Interviewer: Before the earthquake hit?



Hassan Hamada: Yes, beforehand. Moreover, Gen. Keen, the deputy of Gen. Fraser, commander of CENTCOM [sic], was already in Haiti before the earthquake hit. It just so happened that he was in charge of the rescue efforts and that the drill [was simulating] rescue efforts in the wake of an earthquake that would hit Haiti.



[...]



When the bombings took place in London – I think it was on June 7... July 7, 2005... The London bombings were terrorist attacks. At that time, NATO was conducting maneuvers called: "How to Conduct Salvage and Rescue in the Event of a Terrorist Attack in London." This is a strange coincidence.

VIDEO: http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2376.htm

I have never heard nor read a single line of truth emerge from the Muslims. And I blame this all on European Christianity!

[stundie]

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

I have never heard nor read a single line of truth emerge from the Muslims. And I blame this all on European Christianity!

Joseph, I do not know why you keep posting off topic rants about europeans/christians/muslims or things like the Haiti earthquake but if it has nothing to do with 9/11 then please do not spam this thread.


Thanks.

[0ddity]

IAJ, banned for one day, for ignoring a warning on posting such articles in threads unrelated to his topic. Maybe he'll get it this time.

[Meme Virus]

Absolutely cool!

0ddity's just gone up 20 points on my opinion meter.

[Colonel]

Originally Posted by Glennn

Yes, people observed nano-thermite in the dust of the 9/11 rubble. When they examined the dust, they observed nano-thermite.

People? You mean Jones? He found kaolinite, an additive to PAINT. Kaolinite has aluminium in it, as well as silicon and oxygen.

Originally Posted by Glennn

And yes, people observed the WTCs collapsing in the same manner as buildings being brought down by controlled demolition.

Did you read what they said? I read more than a few of the links.


LIKE! That is the operative word. But they were not experts on it either. They had seen what we had all seen on TV. There was talk about bombs going off randomly as well, possible explosions from vans. How many controlled demolitions were conducted in that manner?

Answer ---------NONE!

Originally Posted by Glennn

You claim that the collapses of the WTCs did not resemble controlled demolitions, and that there were no explosions.

OK, take me to task. I said no DEAFENING explosions, the kind that are associated with CD's (that do not really deafen people) but would have been recorded on the seismological record. There were none.

Originally Posted by Glennn

However, your opinion is at odds with firefighters and others who were at the scene. Listen to what they say about explosions and flashes of light that circled the lower outer walls of the WTC.

I'll tell you what. You find an FDNY firefighter who will vouch that they feel the towers or even WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. These folks lost hundreds of companions, relatives, friends in that tragic day. Do you not think that they would be the most vocal on the scene today about the egregious injustice of the NIST report if they really held the feelings that you suppose they have? FDNY has a website. Why don't you ask somebody there about it? Why do you think they are so silent about it today? Are you one of those who so frivolously say they are being quiet to protect their jobs?

What do you think, Glennn? Why are these brave firefighters of FDNY so silent today?

[Colonel]

Originally Posted by stundie

Typical Colonel Failure.........

1. Make a claim
2. Fail to back it up with evidence
3. Demand of others to prove you were wrong.

You made the claim.

I provided the evidence from JREF to refute your claim.

Since then you have provided nothing except your usual blather.

Why are you still here?

Prove what you said. That's all I am asking.

Prove it, back it up, show something.