Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@gazlan wrote:
Show me the official explanation for the finding of Thermite in the remianing dust particles.
Thermite? What thermite? Come on, this is too easy!
@gazlan wrote:
Oh, there’s no struggle, I assure you. Just would hate to think that any sane people may be swayed by the damaging and hurtful accusations of the ‘people’ behind these outlandish and utterly barmy lies.
But if they’re intelligent, I’m sure they’ll just see it for what it is. Bull.
The good old bbc strikes again. :lol:
As does the Tin Foil Hat brigade :D
Enjoying the debate. And winning. 8)
*sigh* There’s always one. Except in this place there’s two… :lol: :roll:
@twistinmymelonman wrote:
I asked YOU what YOUR issues was, not someone else’s.
And MY issues came from the BRIEFEST of research. Ever stopped to think why William Rodriguez isn’t paraded round like a celebrity for being the man that’s single handedly brought down the US government for their heinous murder of over 3000 civilians due to their involvement in 9/11? Truth is, he’s a liar. And not a very good one, either. But he’s making a ton of money off the misery of others so why stop now?
@twistinmymelonman wrote:
It does not matter, you’re a deluded idiot.
Oh really? :)
@twistinmymelonman wrote:
It is clear to see no matter what anyone says to you, you just disagree even when you know you’re wrong :lol: .
Except, I’m not wrong. And THAT’S the part you hate, that not everyone is as gullible as you. Now use your common sense, take off the tin foil hat and come back and join us on Planet Earth.
@twistinmymelonman wrote:
As funny as it maybe to laugh at your stupidity, it does take away from the purpose of the topic in question.
But the topic in question is YOUR stupidity, surely?
@twistinmymelonman wrote:
The last time I attempted to engage you and showed you specifically my points, you not only did not look at them, your reply had nothing to do with the points in question.
Ah now, you see… This, THIS is how the paranoid idiots behind conspiracy theorists try to work their arguments. By lying. Go back to that thread. I clearly stated that I had watched those videos you posted, and posted some that I found that completely debunked yours. And I posed a very pertinent question which I asked you to answer. Your response? To silently walk away. So don’t lie. You walked away, and you’ll no doubt do the same here.
@twistinmymelonman wrote:
You have no intelligence, or anything of value to offer in a discussion. :roll:
Other than the truth, you mean.
So bring it on, bîtches! :D
@gazlan wrote:
What is it you require proof of specifically? List it here now.
Anything you believe is ‘proof’ that there’s a conspiracy to cover up any US governmental participation in the 9/11 attacks. Not conjecture, not hearsay. PROOF.
Good luck.
@gazlan wrote:
To get people to think and re-think is hardly being mis-informed!
What part of the above do you struggle with ?
Oh, there’s no struggle, I assure you. Just would hate to think that any sane people may be swayed by the damaging and hurtful accusations of the ‘people’ behind these outlandish and utterly barmy lies.
But if they’re intelligent, I’m sure they’ll just see it for what it is. Bull.
@twistinmymelonman wrote:
Nothing will ever change on JC, FACT!
Unfortunately true.
The site makes money (not much, but enough to put up with the complaints) so while there’s no ‘need’ to change things, they won’t.
IF however we were asked our opinions… Here’s mine.
1) Registration for all. And not using email addresses with ‘hotmail’, yahoo, etc. Use PROPER ISP e-mail addresses to register (btinternet, talktalk, sky, etc). That way the abusers and racists can be easily tracked down.
2) The website is for 18 and over, ONLY. Treat us like we are over 18.
3) Scrollers can be stopped by having a set time between posts. Having a 3 second block between typing things in the chatroom will bore the scrollers completely. And if it doesn’t, it still gives other chatters the chance to put them on ignore before they completely flood the screen.
4) Give ALL chatguides the ability to be invisible in a chatroom, not JUST the hosts.
I’m sure there’s more, but I’m sat here at work and want to go home, so I’m going to. :)
@twistinmymelonman wrote:
I asked you to be specific, you’re to lazy or don’t know what you’re talking about. Once again you’re shown to be a senseless idiot who does not have a clue.
The link is specific. It tears down the arguments and statements succinctly and easily. Perhaps you need someone to click things for you?
Maybe your clicking hand is ‘busy’ when you’re on the boards, I don’t know… :wink:
You, yourself are quite happy to provide links when challenged. Does the same courtesy not apply to others?
@gazlan wrote:
You appear to think that one group of people be believed over another. Equally there are hundreds and now as likely thousands of academics etc challenging the ‘evidence’ put forward.
Proof?
@gazlan wrote:
All moot of course being that the US Government acted against their own laws in having crucial crime scene evidence removed and destroyed.
Proof?
@gazlan wrote:
It is plain to see that there were explosions in various parts of the buildings, some say before including Rodriguez and another ~ Sanchez who also maintained the building. The statements of various first responders also tell it that way.
Lots of people are quoted as saying ‘explosion’. With all the bangs of that day, of course many people are going to say they heard explosions. Doesn’t mean that’s what they were. Common sense applies.
@gazlan wrote:
Of course, if the Government were in cahoots with A.N Other in creating this tragedy, they have in effect carried out one of the most heinous of crimes against it’s own people and as likely will get away with it.
But, as is obvious to all but the most delusional, there’s no chance in Hell that this is possible. The amount of people that would have to be ‘in the know’ to keep this a secret would run into the hundreds, probably thousands. And all of them are keeping quiet? Common sense, all I’m saying…
@gazlan wrote:
In the greater scheme and without independent research and investigative authority, I would suggest that we have all been or could be mis-guided. Your claim of me being mis-informed is a non-sense as well you know it as either argument can be definitively ‘debunked’ and conjecture will never win an argument.
Except I can and have produced proof. You have produced fantastical fantasies, ‘what if..?’ scenarios and, well, gobbledygook. You may be used to passing such rubbish on these boards before now, but I won’t let you go unchallenged.
@gazlan wrote:
Best we concentrate on the facts, and the facts detail many anomalies, each with their own set of ‘professionals’ both for and against. To get people to think and re-think is hardly being mis-informed! So in effect, will be considered
thus
Oh, how cute. But still, you fail. You want ‘facts’ yet you fail, consistently to produce them, with all the smoke and mirrors of “hey what about…?” and yet never actually try to find the answers. Except for ones that fit your agenda.@gazlan wrote:
Strange that – So did I … :)
Always a pleasure to debunk. :)
@gazlan wrote:
Well Rodriguez does appear to have differing versions of what happened. A critical thinker will need to view all of this information and put it in context with the greater picture. The link you put here is also nothing new and indeed has it’s very own debunker’s
Except, it’s not REALLY debunking is it? It’s asking questions but not bothering to find answers. You can’t actually call that evidence, can you? Can you?
@gazlan wrote:
It’s no great secret that a lot of dollars changed hands that day in that financial consortium, Rodriguez could well have inadvertently contradicted himself over the following years.
There’s no ‘could’ about it. He’s changed his story so many times over the years but he doesn’t DARE try and go back on himself; he’s making far too much money out of it.
@gazlan wrote:
He claims that the commission report not once mentioned his name, given how much of a ‘hero’ he was that day and a key eyewitness, why the omission?
Taking the word (or claims) of someone that’s a proven liar isn’t very good now is it?
@gazlan wrote:
To suggest that the only means of explosions in the basement could and were most likely to have caused the type of damage including the sounds of ‘bombs’ to have been caused by the impact and fire ball from the fuel, quite frankly defeats the whole purpose of critical thinking.
Except for the dozens of actual scientists (yeah, with proper proven degrees and letters after their names!) that have shown that the events of that day were exactly what was claimed: Two jet liners, filled with fuel and innocent passengers crashed into The World Trade Center and the impact, with the jet fuel, intense fires and the structure of the buildings made them collapse. There’s no bombs, no ‘squibs’, not any shred of proof of anything else.
@gazlan wrote:
There are other materials that were potentially explosive in that complex at or below ground level that equally could have caused the ‘bomb effect’ , also there is not a single definite sign of what was responsible for those explosions.
The floors collapsing, one by one? Just one example…
But there’s only Willie Rodriguez’s eye-witness accounts, versus dozens of others, so…
@gazlan wrote:
Thanks for not resisting ~ You can go now.[/b] :P
Why aren’t you kind. Misinformed, but kind. :)
