9/11 Motive, Means and Opportunity[W:56]

[Menard_K]

lol? How about this: any of the posts in this thread that I've made, that you guys have run away from. Pick one.

Still General ... do you have a specific example you would like to address?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Still General ... do you have a specific example you would like to address?

Sure, how about the time I said multiple people had admitted to 9/11 being conducted by Al Qaeda and you dismissed that because I wasn't at those interviews but then talked about the World Trade Centers collapsing, but you weren't there. Would you like to tell the audience why firsthand knowledge is only important when you wish it to be so?

 

[Menard_K]

Sure, how about the time I said multiple people had admitted to 9/11 being conducted by Al Qaeda and you dismissed that because I wasn't at those interviews but then talked about the World Trade Centers collapsing, but you weren't there. Would you like to tell the audience why firsthand knowledge is only important when you wish it to be so?

This is NOT about "first hand knowledge" its about the sort of "evidence" that is being presented,
if in a group of kids somebody sez "reindeer can't fly" and one of the kids pipes up with "oh yea, were
did all that great stuff under the tree come from" This does NOT address the REINDEER CAN NOT FLY
bit ... the problem here is that its very easy to produce "news" reports where people are interviewed and
they may say anything at all about Al Qeada involvement but that does not trump the fact that imbedded
in the OCT explanation of 9/11/2001 are glaring violations of the laws of physics.

Can you parse out the logic? ..... or?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

This is NOT about "first hand knowledge" its about the sort of "evidence" that is being presented,

Ah, so you don't like the evidence because you disagree with it, thus it's wrong.

You realize that's all you did, right? You just said "I don't like that evidence because I think it's wrong". And you wonder why people laugh at truthers?

 

[Menard_K]

Ah, so you don't like the evidence because you disagree with it, thus it's wrong.

You realize that's all you did, right? You just said "I don't like that evidence because I think it's wrong". And you wonder why people laugh at truthers?

You really can not address the character of the evidence?
what? The problem with the "testimony" sort of "evidence"
is that anybody can say anything they want, but the evidence that
clearly shows violations of the laws of physics, you can't fake that.
Lets get real here, the physical evidence in the form of the alleged aircraft wreckage at Shanksville
the fact that WTC 1 & 2 had identical gashes in the sides from two separate "aircraft crashes"
the total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 + the fact that the taxpayer funded "report" on the subject
had to say "total collapse was inevitable ...... " What a CROCK!

 

[OldWorldOrder]

You really can not address the character of the evidence?
what? The problem with the "testimony" sort of "evidence"
is that anybody can say anything they want, but the evidence that
clearly shows violations of the laws of physics, you can't fake that.
Lets get real here, the physical evidence in the form of the alleged aircraft wreckage at Shanksville
the fact that WTC 1 & 2 had identical gashes in the sides from two separate "aircraft crashes"
the total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 + the fact that the taxpayer funded "report" on the subject
had to say "total collapse was inevitable ...... " What a CROCK!

What? So you're just going to ignore that at least a half dozen people, at different times, in different places, admitted that they had some part in the planning and/or execution of this?

Again: do you understand why you're laughed at, now?

 

[Menard_K]

What? So you're just going to ignore that at least a half dozen people, at different times, in different places, admitted that they had some part in the planning and/or execution of this?

Again: do you understand why you're laughed at, now?

Do YOU understand that people can go on TV and say all sorts of things,
but that does not make those things true.

What I want to focus on is the evidence, the stuff that has been documented
in photographs, & the fact that some of the video evidence shows violation(s)
of the laws of physics if the official story is to be taken seriously.

This is heavy stuff!

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Do YOU understand that people can go on TV and say all sorts of things,
but that does not make those things true.

What I want to focus on is the evidence, the stuff that has been documented
in photographs, & the fact that some of the video evidence shows violation(s)
of the laws of physics if the official story is to be taken seriously.

This is heavy stuff!

That's all second hand knowledge. The same type you won't accept from me.

YOU'RE NOT SMART ENOUGH FOR THIS

 

[Menard_K]

That's all second hand knowledge. The same type you won't accept from me.

YOU'RE NOT SMART ENOUGH FOR THIS

Thank U ever so much for the judgment. Do tell, can U C
the violations of the laws of physics in the official explanation?
BTW: did U read my bit on FLT175?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...rfare-subject-9-11-2001-a.html#post1062192815

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Thank U ever so much for the judgment. Do tell, can U C
the violations of the laws of physics in the official explanation?
BTW: did U read my bit on FLT175?

It's secondhand knowledge, which you've told me is inadmissible.

 

[Menard_K]

It's secondhand knowledge, which you've told me is inadmissible.

I really do NOT need your approval to know the things that I know,
& you do NOT need any approval from me... You believe what you will.
obviously you have accepted the 19 suicidal fanatics story .... enjoy ...
for what ever satisfaction it buys you.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I really do NOT need your approval to know the things that I know,
& you do NOT need any approval from me... You believe what you will.
obviously you have accepted the 19 suicidal fanatics story .... enjoy ...
for what ever satisfaction it buys you.

Oh...okay? I'm not looking to be satisfied. Perhaps that's the disconnect.

Anyway, I'll keep bumping this thread from time to time, because this is funny.

 

[Menard_K]

"because this is funny."

This is very heavy stuff, the fact is that its a matter of Planet Earth Security,
there is a monster on the loose and said monster feeds off of WAR ..... Humanity has a HUGE problem here.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

"because this is funny."

This is very heavy stuff, the fact is that its a matter of Planet Earth Security,
there is a monster on the loose and said monster feeds off of WAR ..... Humanity has a HUGE problem here.

That might be a problem, but watching some people bumble their way through theories about fake planes and missiles is still funny. They admitted to it. Multiples of them. At different times and places. And you can't accept it.

 

[Menard_K]

That might be a problem, but watching some people bumble their way through theories about fake planes and missiles is still funny. They admitted to it. Multiples of them. At different times and places. And you can't accept it.

Did you get anything at all from the "Reindeer don't fly" bit?
can you parse out the logic?
or?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Did you get anything at all from the "Reindeer don't fly" bit?
can you parse out the logic?
or?

Are you a physicist?

 

[Menard_K]

Are you a physicist?

Humanoid
earthling type .....


Fascinating Captain ..... Fascinating ...

 

[Occam's Razor]

:roll:

I find it interesting that your avatar is a pic of the DOI and your sig echos the responsibility charged to us by the founders to be ever vigilant of our gov't and the ancient, historically constant paths to tyranny. No path is more well worn than blind trust in gov't through blind party loyalty.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I find it interesting that your avatar is a pic of the DOI and your sig echos the responsibility charged to us by the founders to be ever vigilant of our gov't and the ancient, historically constant paths to tyranny. No path is more well worn than blind trust in gov't through blind party loyalty.

I find it interesting you can't defend your position.

 

[Thoreau72]

As usual OWO, you're jumping to conclusions and making inaccurate statements.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

As usual OWO, you're jumping to conclusions and making inaccurate statements.

lol he blatantly lied and it's there in black and white. And you: how do I know you're a truther?

 

[Thoreau72]

lol he blatantly lied and it's there in black and white. And you: how do I know you're a truther?

Your reputation for factual statements 'round here is quite weak, almost nonexistent. Yes, you can regurgitate government claptrap, but factual statements, not so much.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Your reputation for factual statements 'round here is quite weak, almost nonexistent. Yes, you can regurgitate government claptrap, but factual statements, not so much.

What does this have to do with anything? It can be true, it can be false. How does that relate to Occam's Razor blatantly lying about what he said? It's the second on his list: it being blatantly false and then him feeling the need to lie about kinda undermines all the rest of it, Henry.

 

[Thoreau72]

What does this have to do with anything? It can be true, it can be false. How does that relate to Occam's Razor blatantly lying about what he said? It's the second on his list: it being blatantly false and then him feeling the need to lie about kinda undermines all the rest of it, Henry.

From my experiences on the internet, the best indicator of a weak or non-existent argument is when a poster immediately calls another a liar.

Occam is just saying things that make you uncomfortable. Your calling him a liar says more about you than about him.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Re: 9/11 Motive, Means and Opportunity

From my experiences on the internet, the best indicator of a weak or non-existent argument is when a poster immediately calls another a liar.

He lied. The posts are still here.

Occam is just saying things that make you uncomfortable. Your calling him a liar says more about you than about him.

Well...it means he's a liar:

[*]At the same time Bush Sr became CIA chief, Salem bin Laden invested in GW Jr's first failed energy company aptly named, Arbusto, and Osama became a CIA asset.

You are confused... I never said there was a direct, "you're on the payroll" link. The link is to AL QAEDA... Of which bin Laden was a part, of which the bin Laden family was a supporter. Al Qaeda was the CIA asset. Bin Laden was a part of that. Directly or indirectly, it really doesn't matter.

What he said is right there. A lie. I'm not surprised you closed your eyes and shut your ears, but this is just another hilarious example of it.

Your imagination is very vivid, Henry. You should write books, not argue about historical events.