patrick.net

bgamall4 says

My point is, Bigsby, that this neocon is not helping your argument that neocons don't call for false flags. They do. Here is one on tape, Clawson!

That wasn't my argument. I simply said you were a paranoid conspiracy nut. And as with any group, there are loons who say all sorts of bollocks. Just look at you.

@MMR, you might notice that what you replied to was a response to Bgamall. And it really wasn't that long ago that christians practiced a very conservative form of the religion. Some still do. And given the length of time the two religions have been around...

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

That wasn't my argument.

So you admit that the neocons called for a false flag prior to 9/11 right? Or do you even know what you admit?

Because that was of course what I said. Oh, hang on, no it wasn't.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

suspect I wasn't the only person who missed it. A good job too considering you went back and forth with the one reviewer of your then free book who didn't take a shine to it.

Thanks for the insult. Again, neocons wanting false flags have occurred before this election, 2012, with Clawson and prior to the 2000 election with PNAC speaking about a new Pearl Harbor.

Only an idiot could not connect these dots Bigsby.

It wasn't an insult. There is one review on Amazon and you proceeded to have a back and forth with him.

I agreed with you

Bigsby says

@MMR, you might notice that what you replied to was a response to Bgamall. And it really wasn't that long ago that christians practiced a very conservative form of the religion. Some still do. And given the length of time the two religions have been around...

MMR says

I agreed with you

Bigsby says

@MMR, you might notice that what you replied to was a response to Bgamall. And it really wasn't that long ago that christians practiced a very conservative form of the religion. Some still do. And given the length of time the two religions have been around...

Hardly, you were playing one thing off with the other.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Because that was of course what I said. Oh, hang on, no it wasn't.

So you cannot connect the dots between the original mention of a false flag by the PNAC neocons and then 9/11 and the most recent mention of false flags by a neocon and Romney unexpectedly lost. Remember, when that call was made, the chief neocon, Rove, believed that Romney was a certain winner.

Don't worry, I won't be buying your ebook.

Sorry you felt that way....but I agreed with you because I consider you to be an intelligent person even if I don't agree with you 100% of the time.

In any event, if I made a mistake then I apologize.....I mostly agree with you.....you seem to know what you're talking about....for what it is worth.

Bigsby says

MMR says

I agreed with you

Bigsby says

@MMR, you might notice that what you replied to was a response to Bgamall. And it really wasn't that long ago that christians practiced a very conservative form of the religion. Some still do. And given the length of time the two religions have been around...

Hardly, you were playing one thing off with the other.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Don't worry, I won't be buying your ebook.

You already know the neocons call for false flags. That is why you insult me instead of explaining how they continue to do so yet aren't involved. Did you know Patrick Clawson was a member of the Cheney Energy Task Force? And now he is calling for a false flag?

You really don't have much between the ears Biggs.

People call for and do all sorts of things. You, however, take it to the nth degree even when all scientific research and logical thought demonstrates otherwise. Just look at the nonsense you concoct to make yourself believe your 9/11 conspiracy bullshit. And I may or may not have much between my ears, though my postgrad qualifications would indicate at least some ability for rational thought. You, however, simply appear to have retirement boredom and general paranoia affecting your thought processes.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

People call for and do all sorts of things.

That was weak. And you are wrong about the science. This behavior just solidifies the science. You are the bullshitter. People don't just call for false flags continually unless they mean to carry them out.

People in his position of power, a right hand man of Cheney who is responsible for 9/11 makes your defense of bogus science lose its meaning even more.

You are the one who is not seeing reality. You are the bullshitter.

Weak? It's a fact. People say shite all the time. Some people even do what they say or have people do it for them. But that doesn't mean your 9/11 nutjob views are correct. They quite clearly aren't as all the real evidence you so easily ignore demonstrates.

The Professor says

curious2 says

Steel and cement are not generally fuel sources

Are they ever fuel sources?

Only in ways that are as irrelevant as your conspiracy theories. Steel wool can be burned as fuel, but it's inefficient and there wasn't enough of it to be relevant. Structural steel and cement can only become fuel at the temperatures and pressures found deep inside a large star, where atoms are fused into larger elements; nothing like that happened in NYC on 9/11. Like the conspiracy theories, the question is a waste of time. Please move on to something worthwhile.

The Professor says

Modern forensic analysis has shown that the sinking was probably caused by a boiler explosion.

ha ha ha Americans really enjoy being duped.

Bigsby says

I thought the point Bap was foolishly making was that arab muslims are crazy
unlike asian muslims.

arab muslams are the only true muslams - accoding to them. Everyone else dies first. And even in the arab muslam world there are splinters and fractions that claim to be more muslam than others. That is what I was getting at.

I also do not see Asian muslams as having the same lack of acceptable geo-social behavior skills that arab muslams tend to demonstrate. There are very few asain acting muslam, indicating that acting like a muslam is not common around asains. Now, there are lots of non-arab afican negros acting like muslams these days. Louis Farakan would be soooo upset if he ever read the part where mohamad makes it clear that the negro africans that are willing to follow the laws of the arabs will be allowed to live, but only as eunic slaves. Sucks to be Louie.

The Professor says

curious2 says

Steel wool can be burned as fuel

laughing out loud

Steel wool will burn. Even when its wet.

But, I think we can say for sure that, here on earth, a steel beam or a cement block can not support combustion. In a star they may very well be consumed by fire, but that is not supporting combustion -- I think.

I'm curious to know what you think 'acting like a muslam' actually entails. That and whether you are taking the piss.

Put simply, most actions that people, especially arab muslams, have judged to "prove" someone is following the fabel of mohmad would fall under "acting like a muslam". For example, beheading Daniel Perle was following the arab muslam law wrote in their God book to the letter. That is why no arab muslams were against it. Arab muslams agree with such behavior.

kneeling and praying every so many hours, with your head aimed at mecca, is another action that most anyone would say is "acting muslam". Right?

Not the same as when a guy shoots a doctor at an abortatorium, and then the media or he "claims to be a Christian." His actions are exactly against the law wrote in the Christian God book. Christians do not agree with such behavior.

So, I think it is fair to say that when actions of a person does not match a group's written law - that person is not an active member of the group. When their actions are following their law to the letter, then they are an active member of the group. I would guess the ability to judge actions comes into play at some point.

what does "taking the piss" mean? drinking? No, I do not drink, or smoke, or view porn. Those things are forbidden by him whos name must not be spoken.

So you are taking the piss.

? dont know the phrase?

I have a good buddy named Paul we call Pollywog, so I get that.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

And wog is a very offensive term in the UK.

We aren't in the UK. Let those Wankers deal with it.

A predictably stupid comment from you.

humor is not your strong point is it Bigsby?

Professor have you seen loose change the documentary
alot of evidence is there
http://www.youtube.com/embed/CDx1GLqvBO8

they explain what burned the still in the towers

Bap33 says

humor is not your strong point is it Bigsby?

Nor yours or bgamal's apparently.

bgamall4 says

That loose change video pretty much sums it up.

That is presumably the humour Bap was referring to.

bgamall4 says

Then explain why, when confronted with the accusation and the RNC view, did W break down and cry rather than stand up for himself?

Could you point me to a video or link to W. crying after being confronted with that question?

bgamall4 says

Bap33 says

humor is not your strong point is it Bigsby?

A man both incapable of humor and incapable of seeing that the WTC collapses were planned is a man without a brain.

At least the stupidity of all your posts gives me a good laugh.

Say hi to the NSA watchers gathering your data!

The NSA has been exposed by Mr. Snowden for the out-of-control, fascistic organization that it is. Thousands of violations of their own statutes, secret courts declaring their actions unconstitutional, it doesn't matter - they watch you.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

At least the stupidity of all your posts gives me a good laugh.

So, you are saying Howard Dean was not in a position to know if 9/11 was a false flag based on his position within the Democratic Party? You are smarter than Howard Dean? Come on Bigsby.

Who is wearing the tin foil hat now? YOU are.

You could make a conspiracy out of one man ordering a beer. Is retirement really so boring?

bgamall4 says

Then explain why, when confronted with the accusation and the RNC view, did W
break down and cry rather than stand up for himself?

Wake up.

I watched the clip and although I'm no fan of W., I would strongly disagree with your characterization of his reaction to the question. He seemed to be disgusted with the suggestion and had to restrain himself from answering in the manner he would have liked.

...... not that there's anything wrong with that ....

The Professor says

You should look at the evidence or find some evidence that refutes the
obvious evidence of intentional demolition of the three towers.

Do you even realize how ridiculous this statement is?

The Professor says

I will look at your response when I get back from a hike with my dog

Enjoy your hike!

It's ridiculous because there is pretty strong evidence that two jets flew into the twin towers. Let's begin there.

The Professor says

All of you deniers that reject the evidence of planned demolition without
looking at it are as ignorant as the people that believed the Spanish sunk the
Maine and the Vietnamese attacked our fleet at the Gulf of Tonkin.

Nope. We looked the theories and dismissed them because they don't fit the facts. That's how science works.

tatupu70 says

We looked the theories and dismissed them because they don't fit the facts.
That's how science works.

yep ... unless the subject is global warming, abortion, or male/male sodomite disease spreading ... on those subjects the science and facts are not well received. Wouldn't you agree?

I think two planes hit two towers. I also happen to think they were controlled remotely and/or were locked into their contact points in advance .. like a GPS type of thing or lazor guided. OBL didn't do it.

Same with the pentagon hit. Remote flight and/or locked target.

The one that crashed in the field may have been dropped by a USAF missile.

The one that crashed a week later over the ocean may have been hit by a SAM. Not sure.

I just look at the plan-view and wonder about building 7, and the foot print that the big buildings dropped into is pretty interesting. I'm not a conspericy guy. Clinton is the reason we got attacked.

bgamall4 says

What is scientific is that white smoke was everywhere and that is what happens
in a demolition

See--that's what I'm talking about. Getting from "white smoke" to "controlled demolition" is a VERY long road, but you make it sound like it's obvious.

Bap33 says

unless the subject is global warming, abortion, or male/male sodomite disease
spreading ... on those subjects the science and facts are not well received.
Wouldn't you agree?

No, I would not. I don't think you understand the difference between fact and opinion.

Bap33 says

I think two planes hit two towers. I also happen to think they were
controlled remotely and/or were locked into their contact points in advance ..
like a GPS type of thing or lazor guided. OBL didn't do it.

Same with the pentagon hit. Remote flight and/or locked target.

The one that crashed in the field may have been dropped by a USAF missile

And your factual basis for this theory is?

Bap33 says

I'm not a conspericy guy.

lol.

The Professor says

tatupu70 says

It's ridiculous

You deniers have three basic arguments:

1.) "You are a ridiculous stupid conspiracy theorist."

2.) "The towers could not have been demolished as it would have left evidence and too many people would have to have kept quiet."

3.) "By questioning the official story you are dishonoring the victims."

You seem to have forgotten (or rather very conveniently ignored) all the actual experts who disagree with you. But hey, you and Bgamall obviously know better...

bgamall4 says

Yeah, that is tin foil to think three fell with progressive collapse when it has not happened before or after. They take us as fools prof. They are evil in their intent.

OK--could you detail all the other times jet planes flew into skyscrapers of the same design as the twin towers?

Because otherwise, this is a unique event and lack of a comparable is not surprising.