9/11 media happenings

[Pete the Greek]

I disagree with your views Paime, I don't think it was an inside job. But I can't say I'm impressed with the nasty, undercutting personal posts that have been levied against you.

You're only giving you opinon FFS

Dear, Oh dear.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

From Above Top Secret I found out about these, it was not I who posted there first. I am not the only one in the world who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, check that forum you will find out more.
In 2006 I saw some 9/11 videos on google video, until then I was pro Bush, when others said to me that he is stupid and the war is wrong I said "he is a good president, gets things done, kills the bad guys" . After I saw those videos my view about the world changed.
As you have seen Bob the Lost I started posting on many forums, in most cases it was not I who opened the first thread about 9/11

You're still an idiot

Have another nice day

 

[editor]

I disagree with your views Paime, I don't think it was an inside job. But I can't say I'm impressed with the nasty, undercutting personal posts that have been levied against you.

Considering the fact that we've repeatedly asked posters not to keep on repeating the same old fact-free speculation from the same dubious sites, I'd say the mods have been extraordinarily patient in paimei01's case.

But thanks for your valuable input.

 

[Pete the Greek]

^^

case in point.

Why do people on Urban feel the need to do stuff like that when they see someone voice a view they don't like.

Isn't that the reason why a lot of you hate the right?

No wonder nothing ever changes

 

[Pete the Greek]

Considering the fact that we've repeatedly asked posters not to keep on repeating the same old fact-free speculation from the same dubious sites, I'd say the mods have been extraordinarily patient in paimei01's case.

But thanks for your valuable input.

So if a poster voices historially posited views, the way forward is to barrack them with insults and personal abuse?

yeah, good one.

 

[editor]

In 2006 I saw some 9/11 videos on google video, until then I was pro Bush, when others said to me that he is stupid and the war is wrong I said "he is a good president, gets things done, kills the bad guys" . After I saw those videos my view about the world changed.

Oh well, if you "saw some 9/11 videos on google" than there's no need to debate or research the matter further.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Why do people on Urban feel the need to do stuff like that when they see someone voice a view they don't like

If someone comes on here with well researched arguments and evidence to back themselves up, I'll have a civil debate.


If they're an idiot, I'll call them an idiot

HTH, HAND

 

[editor]

So if a poster voices historially posited views, the way forward is to barrack them with insults and personal abuse?

If a person chooses to repeatedly ignore the advice concerning our policy on endlessly repeating, fact-free 9/11 claims, then I'd say they're lucky to be still allowed to post here, to be honest.

 

[Pete the Greek]

If someone comes on here with well researched arguments and evidence to back themselves up, I'll have a civil debate.


If they're an idiot, I'll call them an idiot

HTH, HAND

fair enough

what does HTH mean?

 

[Pete the Greek]

If a person chooses to repeatedly ignore the advice concerning our policy on endlessly repeating, fact-free 9/11 claims, then I'd say they're lucky to be still allowed to post here, to be honest.

Ok, well then I have a question. Seeing as this thread is thousands of posts long and can't possible explore any more avenues than it has done....presumably, and if all the same hat is being posted by the same people

a) why do you keep posting yourself and paying an obsessional interest in the topic

b) why don't you close the thread?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

From Above Top Secret I found out about these, it was not I who posted there first. I am not the only one in the world who thinks 9/11 was an inside job, check that forum you will find out more.
In 2006 I saw some 9/11 videos on google video, until then I was pro Bush, when others said to me that he is stupid and the war is wrong I said "he is a good president, gets things done, kills the bad guys" . After I saw those videos my view about the world changed.
As you have seen Bob the Lost I started posting on many forums, in most cases it was not I who opened the first thread about 9/11

But you haven't learnt anything have you? You still belive what people tell you without question, you've just changed the source you trust from Bush to one that says bad things about him.

 

[paimei01]

No. What do you have to say about "9/11 press for the truth" on google video ? Debunk that. Families of victims belive it was a conspiracy. Some guys claim they debunked "Loose Change" and that is their proof that the official theory is good
Or that Mohamed who confessed, that is their proof, the words of one man is proof enough
I do not belive whatever other people say be sure about that

 

[editor]

No. What do you have to say about "9/11 press for the truth" on google video ? Debunk that. Families of victims belive it was a conspiracy. Some guys claim they debunked "Loose Change" and that is their proof that the official theory is good
Or that Mohamed who confessed, that is their proof, the words of one man is proof enough
I do not belive whatever other people say be sure about that

Please read through the many, many, many threads extant on these boards about 9/11 and attempt to construct something that remotely resembles an informed opinion.

Basing your beliefs on a few videos slapped up on Google video is hardly a scientific approach.

Believe it or not, most of those people who put those interminable "9/11: THE TRUTH" DVD/videos have a predetermined agenda and are quite happy to twist and distort the truth and employ selective quoting to lure in gullible fools desperate to feel like they know better than everyone else.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Some guys claim they debunked "Loose Change" and that is their proof that the official theory is good

Claim? You never checked out the methodical manner in which loose change was ripped apart fallacy by fallacy then.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

what does HTH mean?

Hope this helps, have a nice day

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

No. What do you have to say about "9/11 press for the truth" on google video ? Debunk that. Families of victims belive it was a conspiracy. Some guys claim they debunked "Loose Change" and that is their proof that the official theory is good
Or that Mohamed who confessed, that is their proof, the words of one man is proof enough
I do not belive whatever other people say be sure about that

<thinks>

Nope, you're still an idiot

 

[Pete the Greek]

Ah, leave him. He's probably just a bit deluded....never know, could be a right brain box for all we know.

 

[Jazzz]

Right final time I am saying this..

NORAD tracks missiles coming into continental North America using tracking stations dotted around the globe (eg Fylingdales). Therefore the NORAD radar system is like a doughnut with continental North America being the hole in the middle ie they do not expect missile attacks to be launched from inside continental North America. Therefore there is no NORAD radar coverage pointing inwards.

This is simply absurd. I've shown that NORAD considered itself fully responsible for any 'air-breathing threat' to the US and Canada. That means, obviously, that it has to be able to account for an enemy somehow getting hold of an aircraft, taking off, and using it to bomb the white house; or attack air force one, or indeed using a plane as a missile because they were well aware of that threat despite their lies.

 

[Jazzz]

Al this has been discussed to death already. If you haven't got any new, credibly sourced evidence (and that doesn't include random YouTube clips) then kindly desist regurgitating the same drivel.

Thanks.

AFAIR we have had very little discussion over that point. And what chutzpah for you to moan about something being 'discussed to death', Mr 'I'll repeat the same question hundreds of times'

 

[Jazzz]

Considering the fact that we've repeatedly asked posters not to keep on repeating the same old fact-free speculation from the same dubious sites, I'd say the mods have been extraordinarily patient in paimei01's case.

But thanks for your valuable input.

He's been fine, don't be ridiculous.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

This is simply absurd. I've shown that NORAD considered itself fully responsible for any 'air-breathing threat' to the US and Canada. That means, obviously, that it has to be able to account for an enemy somehow getting hold of an aircraft, taking off, and using it to bomb the white house; or attack air force one, or indeed using a plane as a missile because they were well aware of that threat despite their lies.

You are taking the piss now. Last i heard NORAD wasn't responsible for preventing drive by shootings, yet the gunman will be "air breathing". Could it be that you're taking an offhand remark and misinterpreting? YET A-FUCKING-GAIN?

In fact, don't answer that you useless waste of oxygen. You still owe me a couple of explanations, especially the one about how you manage not to read the responses i wasted time writing for your education.

 

[Pete the Greek]

Steady on Bob!

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Finished your analysis of that protec report yet Jazzz?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Steady on Bob!

Jazzz has messed me about so many times i can't count. I do take it personally when i explain something for him to discover that he hasn't bothered to read it or tries to dismiss it with a single line of hyperbole rich bragging. The only way to get him to respond in a discussion he's losing is to make it personal, otherwise he just wriggles out of it.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

And what chutzpah for you to moan about something being 'discussed to death', Mr 'I'll repeat the same question hundreds of times'

Whereas simply stating the same old crap hundreds of times, is perfectly OK?

Here's an idea - answer the questions people put to you (based on points YOU raised), and maybe people won't ask them again! Easy!

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

"Light on substance" I seem to recall. Care to explain Jazzz? Or are you going to run away from this one as well?

 

[Techno303]

Must be Saturday then.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Still running away Jazzz?

What's the matter, why won't you discuss that report?

 

[Jazzz]

Whereas simply stating the same old crap hundreds of times, is perfectly OK?

Here's an idea - answer the questions people put to you (based on points YOU raised), and maybe people won't ask them again! Easy!

I'm under no obligation to indulge anyone's interrogations. Maybe you try posting on a thread where simply stating your position will have ten posters throwing incessant questions and also a load of personal shit at you - after 50 pages you might just get a bit tired too.

 

[editor]

I'm under no obligation to indulge anyone's interrogations. Maybe you try posting on a thread where simply stating your position will have ten posters throwing incessant questions and also a load of personal shit at you - after 50 pages you might just get a bit tired too.

Best put your head back in the sand then.

We don't want any pesky facts and expert analysis spoiling your exciting 9/11 conspiracy fantasies, do we?