My apologies, but being constantly called a kook, crank (or my personal favorite: a "fucktard") because I quite logically disbelieve the constantly proven lying zog and their ozcs, requires a response.

When a challlenge is offered, a repy will be made, regardless of which thread it happens to collide with.
Again I offer my humble apology in that I may have unknowigly diverted this thread.
Be sure that any more attacks on my character, or beliefs, will be defended, however.
88

I understand completely. I have also been called a fucktard in the past by JP. I also do not believe the government, jew-media 911 conspiracy theory but I am not a strong supporter of any other theory.

You certainly were not the only one digressing. Digressions happen and they can be corrected.

Try this the next time you need to respond about 911: Post your response on the WTC sticky thread and then post a link on this thread to that post. That will work for any digression from a thread topic.

Thanks for the advice Burrhus.
I believe I will do just that from now on.
Nice to see that not everyone here blindly believes in the ozcs, and/or the flamers/synchophants/subversives who support this ridiculous fairy tale.

88

There are many plausible conspiracy theories, but the ones I have a problem with are those that are sexy enough to write big fat books about or make thrilling videos. For example, stories about the illuminati, the free masons, black helicopters and stuff down those lines. You ever noticed how the most popular conspiracy theories are nearly always politically correct, you know, never mentioning jews.

Most conspiracies over the last hundred years or so, have been right out in public, open conspiracies in other words. For example, a small group of white traitor “intellectuals” and kikes set out to destroy Whites’ views towards race, morality, nation, culture, sexuality and countless other things, they did not keep their intentions a secret from the public, in fact they openly proclaimed what they were doing.

Conspiring does not necesarrily coincide with hiding in the shadows, as certain flamers and synchophants would have us believe.

Many conspiricies are in fact, very in your face.

Let's look at some fine examples of this in the past.
The kangaroo court Neuremburg trials, Brown vs. board of education, roe v wade, etc...
Conspiricy and consensus are not too far removed from each other, after all
Gen. George Washington "conspired" with other patriots to form this nation.
When a consensus of agreement was reached, it was no loger a conspiricy, but in fact was a consensus.

When modern conspricies are brought to light via mountains of evidence to support a theory, the general consensus from the masses wil determine wheather or not it is a valid conspiricy, or merely a theory.

However, to call into question one's sanity and/or intelligence,when said person opines about possible conspircies is usualy a great indicator of who is hiding what.

Those who are armed with the truth (or at least evidence of falsehood from the conspiritors) will usually be attacked and labled as cranks, kooks fucktards and a vast plethora of other colorful colloquialisms to take attention away from the actual conspiricy, and to divert it to the person opining about it in the first place.

Classic jewish tactics, but as transparent as glass to any with a critical eye.
The stones subversives hurl toward conspiricy theorists usualy end up striking themselves instead, and usually they shoot themselves right in the foot.

No matter what you believe, only a fool would believe our lying zog about anything it says, because as I have stated earlier, once you bust someone in a lie, you must assume that everything they say from that point on, will in fact be a lie...

88

Funny J.P., but I'm not quite sure if you're referring to MOMUS or yourself there...

Here's a tired but specific argument for you then, explain what happened to bldg 7...

Let me guess...it either (once again) won't be touched, or you'll simply toss out some kike-like non-sequitir, as per usual...Here's my abridged answer to what happened to bldg 7 (and the twins as well): Bushco, Larry Siverstein, a whole shitload of Thermate, on the cheap and a fat juicy insurance policy concerning "acts of terrorism"...]

Here's what happens when I answer your questions:

Proof is presented that your claims are wrong. You move on to a different claim and ignore it. Proof is presented for those other claims(NORAD, etc.), eventually you return to the original claim again(e.g. Building 7).

Here's a newsflash for you: "THERMATE" IS NOT USED IN BUILDING DEMOLITIONS!

Here's another: There are NUMEROUS eyewitnesses that talked about the massive damage WTC 7 sustained hours before the collapse. The FDNY made the decision to clear out a "collapse zone" around the building because they were sure it would collapse. I have often linked to their statements. These links were ignored.

Hey morons!! BAN ME!!!

 

Here's a newsflash for you: "THERMATE" IS NOT USED IN BUILDING DEMOLITIONS!

And Here's a reality flash for you J.P.:

Thermate IS used in bldg demos, and any (legit) bldg. demo expert can and will, easily explain this to you. Thermate is simply sulphur enriched thermite, and yes J.P. that's exactly what they use to bring down abandoned or derrelict strutures...
As I 've said J.P., you're not even a good liar anymore, and your sweeping generalities prove this time and again.

Don't try that bullshit with me, cause we both know itz exactly that: BULLSHIT.

Now, as I've also said before:
Give up on this whole dis-information thing and go tell some nice kiddie stories at the library...the children there may listen in wide-eyed fascination, but, as you have most certainly discovered: Anyone over the age of 12 will not!!

Proof is presented that your claims are wrong. You move on to a different claim and ignore it. Proof is presented for those other claims(NORAD, etc.), eventually you return to the original claim again(e.g. Building 7).

Whats this? another example of you "providing proof" which really equals out to nothing more than you vomiting out (verbatim) " I said it and I'm right so itz proved"?

Pathetic, truly pathetic.

Here's another: There are NUMEROUS eyewitnesses that talked about the massive damage WTC 7 sustained hours before the collapse. The FDNY made the decision to clear out a "collapse zone" around the building because they were sure it would collapse. I have often linked to their statements. These links were ignored.

So let me get this straight then...the nyfd knew that burning jet fuel would bring these towers down, hours before they fell...from massive damage sustained (which is actually complete and utter bullshit, as these towers were each, quite logically, designed to survive multiple impacts from the largest commercial airliner at the time, a boeing 707, which is almost identical to the planes that hit the towers, and anyone can easily look up the blueprints for these bdgs online, for real proof), and yet, at the same time, these "eyewitnesses" and firemen aren't structural engineers or demo experts, and never claimed to be (which incidently, you adamantly and constantly demand of us) and yet you take their testimony at face value???
Why the double standard J.P.?
Are you that gullible, or do you simply provide knee-jerk aquiescence to any who help corroborate the official fairy tale?

You seem to be quite tangled in your web of deciet there dude...

Well, search-function boy, do you have the list of my SPECIFIC assertions to show me?

Originally Posted by J.P. Slovjanski
Momus, here you show us how you are a liar. You claim that you merely "question the official story". Just like the Loose Change people and a lot of 9-11 Troofers. The problem is that this is a lie. You make SPECIFIC accusations and insist that they are not only true, but that we must discount any evidence to the contrary and believe these theories. Otherwise you go on the attack.

No you are not "questioning" you are asserting- and your assertions not only lack evidence of their own but are also refuted by the existing evidence.

Those who make accusations and then claim they are "just asking questions" are simply intellectual cowards, to use Mark Roberts' term.

Sure JP. You've alway been good at calling others a liar and good at demanding sources and citations.
So you won't mind being quick to show the forum those SPECIFIC assertions you credit me with.

Here's a news flash for you:

Thermate IS used in bldg demos,

Which buildings have been demolished with "thermate", name one.

and any (legit) bldg. demo expert can and will, easily explain this to you.

Really? Like who?

Thermate is simply sulphur enriched thermite, and yes J.P. that's what they use to bring down abandoned or derrelict strutures

No, actually they don't. Ask a (legit) demo expert.

As I 've said J.P., you're not even a good liar anymore, and your sweeping generalities prove this time and again.

Got any proof for your assertions?

Don't try that bullshit with me, cause we both know itz exactly that: BULLSHIT.

Yes, believing that buildings are demolished with something non-explosive is bullshit.

Now, as I've also said before:
Give up on this whole dis-information thing and go tell some nice kiddie stories at the library...the children there may listen in wide-eyed fascination, but, as you have most certainly discovered: Anyone over the age of 12 will not!!

Why hasn't ONE structural engineer, demolitions expert, or architect came forward to support the conspiracy theory?

Whats this? another example of you "providing proof" which really equals out to nothing more than you vomiting out (verbatim) " I said it and I'm right so itz proved"?

No, it's proven because these statements are a matter of recod.

So let me get this straight then...the nyfd knew that burning jet fuel would bring these towers down, hours before they fell...from massive damage sustained (which is actually complete and utter bullshit, as these towers were each, quite logically, designed to survive multiple impacts from the largest commercial airliner at the time, a boeing 707, which is almost identical to the planes that hit the towers, and anyone can easily look up the blueprints for these bdgs online, for real proof), and yet, at the same time, they aren't structural engineers or demo experts, and never claimed to be (which incidently, you adamantly demand of us) and you take this testimony at face value???

You are a bit confused here aren't you? You asked about BUILDING 7. Remember that? You asked me to explain BUILDING 7. Now pay attention and READ...VERY....SLOWLY...

NO, the FDNY didn't know that towers 1 and 2 would collapse. On that note, there is a big difference between a 707 on approach speed(which is what the towers were designed for), and the planes that hit at FULL SPEED.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: WTC 7 sustained heavy damage from falling debris. The FDNY became convinced that the building would collapse, as several fire officials remarked. So they pulled everyone away from the building.

So basically what they did was LOOK at the building and say: THAT BUILDING LOOKS DANGEROUS! WE SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM IT! No engineering degree needed(although there were civil engineers on the site that agreed with the appraisal).

Why the double standard J.P.?
Are you that gullible, or do you simply provide knee-jerk aquiescence to any who help corroborate the official fairy tale?

It's actually not a double standard, you are just confused.

You seem to be quite tangled in your web there dude...

In your non-functioning brain I am sure that is the case. Not in the real world however.

Yes, believing that buildings are demolished with something non-explosive is bullshit.

Amen to that, JP! Jet fuel just doesn't do it. That's what we've been telling you for months.

Amen to that, JP! Jet fuel just doesn't do it. That's what we've been telling you for months.

No, jet fuel, other flammable material, and the impact of two large commercial aircraft flying at top speed, plus gravity- causes a collapse. That's what the structural engineers say. Of course every structural engineer, in the entire world, is apparently part of the conspiracy.

Which buildings have been demolished with "thermate", name one.

I'll name three...

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060801055131AA5UL1N
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/07/has-30-story-building-ever.html

These, of course, will be instantly discarded as conspiricy crank nonsense, right?

Really? Like who?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

No, actually they don't. Ask a (legit) demo expert.

The experts above don't need me to ask them anything J.P., they are quite willing to explain it all without my prompting...

Got any proof for your assertions?

The lillte old search function provides me of all the proof I need that you are full of shit (and I suggest other forum members use it as well...)

Yes, believing that buildings are demolished with something non-explosive is bullshit.

Falling back on sarcasm now huh? Let me rephrase then...we both know that believing that burning jet fuel caused these buildings to collapse is stupid

Why hasn't ONE structural engineer, demolitions expert, or architect came forward to support the conspiracy theory

Busted! you fucking liar, see the above links for these non-existant experts, and then be sure to discard this evidence and testimony as well...

No, it's proven because these statements are a matter of recod.

A matter of record??? Whose records? our government's records?? oh, I see you mean like the records concerning the holocaust, J.F.K.'s assassination, or pearl harbor, for example?:rolleyes:

NO, the FDNY didn't know that towers 1 and 2 would collapse.

Busted again you fucking liar:

The FDNY made the decision to clear out a "collapse zone" around the building because they were sure it would collapse.

So which is it pollack?

PAY ATTENTION HERE: WTC 7 sustained heavy damage from falling debris. The FDNY became convinced that the building would collapse, as several fire officials remarked. So they pulled everyone away from the building.

Is a rebuttal really required here at all??? You must see how ridiculous you look J.P.
Funny, not only does burning jet fuel cause the twins to crumble to powder, but "falling debris" now causes buidings to collapse as well...
(In reality Bldg.7 was only slighty damaged, as compared to the World Bank building right next to it which was hit by more debris than #7 was, burst into flame and...somehow remained standing...

So basically what they did was LOOK at the building and say: THAT BUILDING LOOKS DANGEROUS! WE SHOULD STAY AWAY FROM IT! No engineering degree needed(although there were civil engineers on the site that agreed with the appraisal).

Again let's compare bullshit with bullshit:

The FDNY made the decision to clear out a "collapse zone" around the building because they were sure it would collapse

It would be nice if you got your story straight, man.

It's actually not a double standard, you are just confused.

Yes J.P. I must admit that I find your flip-flopping very confusing, but I believe it is you who are confused. Confused enough to buy (and spew) the government fairy tale ad nausem, and verbatim.

In your non-functioning brain I am sure that is the case. Not in the real world however.

Translation: "Shit I'm busted in my ridiculously transparent lies again, so I'll call your brain "non-functioning, and insist that my version of reality (la-la-land) is the correct one.
Hell I may even be abe to distract and redirect this whole thread by calling you brainless and confused... one can't but hope"

You're a piss poor liar, but an awesome fairy tale teller J.P.
Now just for once, be honest and tell us all: Just who is it that you think you're fooling, pollack??

Originally posted by JP:
No, jet fuel, other flammable material, and the impact of two large commercial aircraft flying at top speed, plus gravity- causes a collapse. That's what the structural engineers say.

Right, all that and a cabal of powerful neocon jews, eh?
JP, old name-caller, where are those SPECIFIC assertions you credit me with? Who's a liar?

Originally Posted by J.P. Slovjanski
Yes, believing that buildings are demolished with something non-explosive is bullshit.

Wow, you are pretty confused. Please show that Stephen "Cold Fusion" Jones' paper was peer-reviewed, please NAME the structural engineers and demolitions experts who support your theory. I don't have time to watch your videos or read through layers of nonsense. It's not hard to pick out the NAMES of these "experts", and post them here so we can verify their credentials. Also, name those buildings which were demolished with "thermate".

Other than that nothing in your posts merits a response. I never claimed that the FDNY believed WTC towers 1 and 2 would collapse. If they HAD, don't you think so many of them would not have died in there? I was referring to WTC 7 because you asked about it.

Here's what Thermate is:

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

It is used for INCINDIERY purposes, it doesn't explode and can't be controlled or synchronized like demolition charges.

don't have time to watch your videos or read through layers of nonsense.

Riiight....
So you demand I provide examples of experts, I easily provide proof of expert testimony and you tell me that you "don't have time to watch vidoes or read through layers of "nonsense"
Who is brainless now you lying pollack?

Why hasn't ONE structural engineer, demolitions expert, or architect came forward to support the conspiracy theory

Gonna gloss the whole thing over and inform us that "Nothing else in my post merits a response...so there?
You are the weakest link J.P.
Goodbye