patrick.net

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.

The Professor says

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."

I don't recall using any of those arguments. I've yet to see a compelling version of what DID happen. Only vague criticisms of the official version. NEVER a similar explanation involving controlled demolition or laser guided planes, etc. If I'm wrong, please point me in the direction of the real story....

bgamall4 says

WTC7 is the factual basis for debunking the debunkers. They have no answer for WTC7. None. They never will.

No, they do. You just don't like it.

bgamall4 says

I have looked at hundreds of pictures of demolitions and the smoke just looks like 9/11.

And that passes for science in your mind? The smoke from 9/11 looked similar to smoke from controlled demolitions that you've seen?

I'm speechless.

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.

And what about all those phone conversations between the doomed passengers and their loved ones who witnessed the 9/11 terrorists kill people on the plane and take over the cockpits?

All that shit faked too? Were the families and their answering machine recordings all part of the big conspiracy?

At what point do these conspiracy theories just collapse under their own weight and complexity?

The Professor says

Bigsby says

all the actual experts who disagree with you.

You've talked about the experts but never linked to them. You say you don't want to waste your time.

There are no "progressive collapse" experts that have not been debunked.

Complete and utter bullshit. You originally came to this discussion stating that you were open minded about what happened (complete nonsense of course) and then proceeded to reel off one ridiculous video after another. If you can find those, then I think you can find the numerous threads that you and Bgamall have started and where people have posted the information you claim you want to see (but which you will simply disregard because it doesn't align with your narrative). You can also use the rest of the internet. It's all a waste of time of course, because you've already made up your mind and are simply happy to lap up the most ludicrous of conspiracy nonsense. Fine, if that's what you want to do, then good for you, but why do you have to keep peddling the same old nonsense over and over again? Yes, we know what you think. Yes, we've seen your stupid videos, compiled by equally vapid individuals. And yes, we all know you have no scientific knowledge, but are completely happy to dismiss those that do because, well because you think you know better... think being the operative word.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

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...

They have either been threatened or they gain financially from what they do. They are not putting forth real science.

Where's the facepalm smilie when you need it?

bgamall4 says

tatupu70 says

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.

But the smoke from detonation was the same. However, the smoke from the planes was black. Look at the picture here that says soot:

http://rense.com/general75/thrm.htm

An infant can see the difference in the smoke(s).

How do you know what the smoke from silent detonations looks like?

The Professor says

Bigsby says

Complete and utter bullshit.

So you still have nothing but insult?

Thank you for your contribution.

Er, your views require zero respect, and you know fine well where to look as I stated in the rest of the post you chose not to include.

socal2 says

And what about all those phone conversations between the doomed passengers
and their loved ones who witnessed the 9/11 terrorists kill people on the plane
and take over the cockpits?

no no, my post failed to say I did think the crazy arabs took over the cock-pit. I just happen to think the reason they were able to hit such a small target on the very first attempt could be due to a guidance system of some type. I am sorry, I can see from my post what you figured I meant, and that was not what I meant.

The Professor says

Bigsby says

your views require zero respect

Thank you for your contribution to the debate.

You're welcome. I hope you come to your senses as there are plenty more important things to focus on than wasting your time concocting bullshit 9/11 conspiracies.

bgamall4 says

You are outnumbered here. Your tin foil ideas are so lame. You know the black
smoke of the planes and the white smoke of detonation are easily identifiable.
You are lame and tin foil.

You do realize that a fire in the twin towers might produce both black and white smoke, right? Jet fuel was burning, but so were a LOT of other things in the building...

Jet fuel would not be burning if it all was spent in the first mili-second. Not that it matters to your point. Oil, hydrolic fluid, and other lube type fluids could be burning, but I doubt the jet fuel was still around .... unless there was just an itty bitty leak in the fuel tank and it dripped onto a lit fire. Otherwise, it exploded on impact and that was that. No more jet fuel. Right?

Well why don't we get the myth busters to fly a plane into the Willis tower and see if the same thing happens?

It could serve two purposes, it would solve the mystery about how the towers collapsed, and it would clean up Chicago a little bit.

bgamall4 says

Anything burning that was not thermite related was black smoke.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? Last I checked, burning paper doesn't create black smoke.

bgamall4 says

Which is why the NIST waited years to post an explanation for it, because
they had no real explanation for it.

And, like I've said before, unusual things happen all the time. Doesn't mean there's a conspiracy involved. Since planes don't fly into skyscrapers every day, it stands to reason that it make take a bit longer to analyze the events.

bgamall4 says

We do know the NIST model is not valid because it doesn't look like the building
falling at all.

Again--you've got to be kidding. It must be wrong because it "doesn't look right"?