patrick.net

coriacci1 says

Bigsby says

you conspiracists

who pays you to write this stuff?

I rest my case. An utterly typical conspiracy nut response.

here you go prof.......Bigsby says

Take me off ignore and respond to my points rather than running away and simply repetitively posting the same guff over and over again. You quite obviously ignore any reasoned points in favour of conspiracy nonsense. That is your choice, but don't try and pretend you are offering anything insightful. You are simply making assertions without any evidence. It's idle speculation or down right lies that you are interested in passing off as the 'truth.' Bgamall's Rooke story is a perfect example of what you conspiracists do. You simply lie and then ignore the rebuttals that people put up. You then deflect and move on, and further down the line simply repeat the already disproved claim. You are bunch of intellectually dishonest individuals whose arrogance and lack of rigorous thought make for an unfortunate combination on the internet. It's a shame that you now have such a large outlet for your unsubstantiated gibberish.

Bigsby says

I rest my case. An utterly typical conspiracy nut response.

an utterly typical debunker personal attack

one for the prof ..Bigsby says

I rest my case. An utterly typical conspiracy nut response.

an utterly typical debunker personal attack

coriacci1 says

one for the prof ..Bigsby says

I rest my case. An utterly typical conspiracy nut response.

an utterly typical debunker personal attack

What do you expect in response to your post? Put up something meaningful and I'll be happy to address it. That's not what you did though, is it?

The Professor says

http://www.consensus911.org/

Start denying bigsby. Pick any point you want.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me which of those points hasn't already been covered in painful detail. And why do you seem to get most of your 'evidence' from conspiracy websites? In this case, a site calling itself Consensus 9/11. Presumably tongue was firmly planted in cheek when coming up with that name.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Take me off ignore and respond to my points rather than running away and simply repetitively posting the same guff over and over again.

He should just delete your dumb comments.

And he should ignore your clear and demonstrable lies. Does the Rooke case ring a bell?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

What do you expect in response to your post?

For you to go away. That is what we want. Is Rupert paying you?

You want me to go away so that you can freely post up lies without anyone challenging them in the hope that someone else will stumble across them and become as misinformed as the three of you. I'm unsurprised that that is what you want. Obviously any discussion, analysis or questioning of what you post up is best avoided otherwise you might end up embarrassing yourself on an all too frequent basis. Care to hold up your hands about the Rooke case yet? Thought not.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Perhaps you'd like to tell me which of those points hasn't already been covered in painful detail. And why do you seem to get most of your 'evidence' from conspiracy websites?

We get evidence from videos too. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. You, on the other hand, get your evidence from popular mechanics owned by that British liar Rupert Murdoch.

That you source from conspiracy websites.

And Murdoch is Australian with American citizenship now, is he not? You aren't very good at getting your facts in order, are you?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

You want me to go away so that you can freely post up lies without anyone challenging them in the hope that someone else will stumble across them and become as misinformed as the three of you.

What do you care what people post? We have made our minds up and you won't change them so what is your point? At every chance we post prove, like videos of firefighters saying there were explosions on the ground and basement floors before the towers came down. You can't refute that. You just rattle off a bunch of crap and the more you post the more people reading this realize what a fool you really are. So keep posting and we will keep proving.

Why would you inflict punishment on yourself like that Bigsby?

You don't post up proof. You claim ridiculous arguments to be proof. They aren't. Were your Rooke claims proof or flat out lies? Why shouldn't people respond to such blatant nonsense. You don't check facts. You source everything from your conspiracy websites and take all of it at face value. It's intellectually dishonest and yet you arrogantly claim it as proof. No, it isn't.

bgamall4 says

We have made our minds up and you won't change them so what is your point?

That really says it all, doesn't it? Any kind of real, fact based analysis of what happened is of absolutely no interest to you. Lamentable.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Any kind of real, fact based analysis of what happened is of absolutely no interest to you. Lamentable.

We have 10 facts for every one you have. So, you are the fossil here.

An utterly baseless claim.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

And Murdoch is Australian with American citizenship now, is he not? You aren't very good at getting your facts in order, are you?

Most people don't know that, so you probably are paid by him. I was testing you.

No, you weren't. You are just clueless. Anybody with an ounce of awareness knows that he isn't British. Naturally, you thought he was.

I 'pounce' on the crap that you post not your lack of linguistic ability. Why worry about your poor spelling when there is so much more to shake my head at in disbelief? And there is no such thing as 'compelling evidence' to you except when you think something 'proves' your nonsense 9/11 demolition theories (which of course none of it does).

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

"Minor, random, small fires (in WTC7)." Err...

Actually that is true Bigsby. Give it up.

No, it is demonstrably not true. Is this what you consider to be 'minor, random, small fires?'

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

I 'pounce' on the crap that you post not your lack of linguistic ability.

You pounce like a pig, or a duck. You have no pounce because you have no facts.

I have no facts? You mean like your Rooke case claims? Or the 'dancing' Israelis? Or pretty much everything you post...

Seriously, you really shouldn't be attacking other people about a lack of facts given the nonsense you post up on a daily basis.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

No, you weren't. You are just clueless. Anybody with an ounce of awareness knows that he isn't British. Naturally, you thought he was.

Prove it.

Er, you posted up that he was British.

bgamall4 says

The Professor says

He always pounces on my spelling errors.

He may be the most irrelevant man in the world.

I get the feeling that is rather descriptive of you - hence your love of all this conspiracy nonsense. You think it empowers you when in fact it just makes you look like a crazy old man.

The Professor says

In the words of Engine 7′s Joe Casaliggi: “You have two 110-story office buildings. You don’t find a desk; you don’t find a chair; you don’t find a telephone or a computer… . The biggest piece of a telephone was half of a keypad.

http://web.timesunion.com/news/september11/091102/artifactsgallery/wtc911.html

I presume that means something different to you and Bgamall than it does to the rest of us.

bgamall4 says

Prof, check my new posts out at the thread I started: http://patrick.net/?p=1230890 I don't want to repeat them here but that discussion is worth taking a look at.

Though you have to take into account Bgamall has deleted half the posts.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Though you have to take into account Bgamall has deleted half the posts.

I am trying to keep it on subject. Your posts that have something to add are not being deleted. But there is so much fluff that the good information and videos just get buried. I almost think that is your method of operation, Bigsby.

You've deleted plenty of my posts and those of others that have addressed what you've said. You just don't want to answer what is raised. Instead, you just want to throw around the word cockroach, keep posting up the same old videos and completely ignore any direct questions that you just can't deal with - you just move on to your next conspiracy talking point. You did it for Rooke. You did it for the 'dancing' Israelis. You do it all the time for your amazing silent squibs. You don't address anything. You just post up yet another video of someone saying they heard 'explosions' or some such or multiple videos from multiple angles of the collapse of the WTC7 that simply don't demonstrate what you claim. You are, as I keep saying, intellectually dishonest. You are peddling outlandish conspiracy theories that you state (with a completely straight face) are FACT, but then fail to produce anything that demonstrates those 'facts.'
You are the person peddling fluff - the ridiculous claims of 'proof' that are entirely lifted from conspiracy websites - presumably if you were an ancient alien believer (you probably are), then your 'proof' would be Chariots of the Gods fan sites. Unfortunately, and sadly, you don't appear to understand what is problematic with that approach.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Instead, you just want to throw around the word cockroach,

No Bigsby, I specifically apply the term cockroach to you. You earn it from your consistency and relentless spreading of germs and filth.

Says the intellectually challenged conspiracy peddler who repeatedly posts up the same crap in an attempt to prove his moronic views.

The Professor says

We don't know who destroyed the three towers or how they did it. We do know that the official explanation is contrived to steal our wealth and liberty.

It's pretty obvious to anyone with any critical thinking skills that the people who hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings had a rather direct input into bringing the buildings down.

The Professor says

to engage him is just "feeding the troll"

Do you even understand what a troll does on the internet? Apparently you don't.

The Professor says

On the positive side he does continually bring the threads to the top of the forum.

Your thread drifts off the front page all the time and then you pop it back up with another stupid video or comment. You would do that whether or not I was commenting. But hey, why not test your theory. Let this thread drop off the front page and we'll see who brings it back to the top once again.

Bigsby says

t's pretty obvious to anyone with any critical thinking skills that the people who hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings had a rather direct input into bringing the buildings down.

the oppisite is true.

is anyone here old enough to remember the controlled demolitions in atlantic city circa 70”s-80”s? before i even asked questions about 911 who dunnit, it was was clear to me that those buldings were blown up, based on all the other controlled demos i had seen in atlantic city back in the day.

bgamall4 says

No it is not obvious to most people who take the time to understand what really happened.

People that know what really happened know that aliens did it. Don't try to hide nevada boy, home of area 57 where the government has been performing alien/human breeding experiments for 50 years. Admit it, you're half alien. That's why you constantly try to hide the true evidence. you are trying cover up for you alien family.

You can't hide from the truth.

The Professor says

Even Bigsby will not admit that he believes office fires caused the utter destruction of WTC7.

Err...
The Professor says

Anyone that understands a little about physics knows that fires cannot bring steel framed buildings down.

What do you know about physics?

The Professor says

I don't want to be a truther. I want someone to convince me that there is a reasonable explanation for the evidence.

Yes, you do.

The Professor says

But they don't.

We do. You just ignore it in favour of the kind of nonsense Bgamall peddles.

The Professor says

Please post links to evidence pro and con. Argue facts and evidence with me. Convince the professor that the official story was correct. Or help me spread the call for truth.

Arf. You claim you want another investigation and in the same breath say that it was a controlled demolition with zero proof. There is only one conclusion from any investigation that you would accept.

coriacci1 says

is anyone here old enough to remember the controlled demolitions in atlantic city circa 70”s-80”s? before i even asked questions about 911 who dunnit, it was was clear to me that those buldings were blown up, based on all the other controlled demos i had seen in atlantic city back in the day.

I actually watched the hotel traymore demolition, it was on the news for weeks beforehand so a bunch of us went down to see it. Really cool. Still in the guiness books as the largest demolition. Didn't look or sound anything like the WTC collapse though.

bob2356 says

coriacci1 says

is anyone here old enough to remember the controlled demolitions in atlantic city circa 70”s-80”s? before i even asked questions about 911 who dunnit, it was was clear to me that those buldings were blown up, based on all the other controlled demos i had seen in atlantic city back in the day.

I actually watched the hotel traymore demolition, it was on the news for weeks beforehand so a bunch of us went down to see it. Really cool. Still in the guiness books as the largest demolition. Didn't look or sound anything like the WTC collapse though.

They couldn't make it silent? Amateurs.

Bigsby says

They couldn't make it silent? Amateurs.

If aliens had done it like they did the wtc it would have been done right.

Ordinary humans or even half aliens lack the skills needed to manage to cd the wtc while making look like it wasn't a cd so that people would suspect it was a cd since it didn't look like a cd so that they would believe that al queda told all the jews to stay away so they could fly planes into the wtc so that people would believe that the planes were a false flag to cover up for the cd that didn't look like a cd so the wouldn't think that the government hired al queda to fly planes into the wtc to cover up for the government cding the wtc even though it didn't look like a cd all of which was done to cover up for the fact that aliens actually brought down the wtc with a death ray.

It's all very clear, just read what bigmouth4 and the professor have written.

Got to keep bigmouth4's delete finger busy.

The Professor says

Bob, You should ignore Bigsby, He has nothing real to say. Ignore really works.

Man works at the circus sweeping up shit after the elephants. He complains day and night that he hates his job. Someone says why don't you quit? Man says "what, and leave the circus".

Never mind bigs, Ignoring you and bigmouth4 would deprive me of the best entertainment on the planet. I haven't had so much to laugh about since shrek got nuked.

The Professor says

So Bob. Do you believe that WTC7 was demolished by office furnishing fires?

Of course not. There has never been a case of steel getting hot enough to weaken in a raging fire. All those pictures you see of burned down buildings with steel bent every which way are planted by aliens for the last 150 years knowing that they were going to demolish the wtc. Carefully setting the stage by releasing tens of thousands of altered pictures of burned down buildings so that everyone would believe that fires weakened the steel was a crucial part of their nefarious plan to cd the wtc while having al queda drive plans into it to fool people into thinking it wasn't a cd. It's so clever it's kind of hard to believe.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

The Professor says

Even Bigsby will not admit that he believes office fires caused the utter destruction of WTC7.

Err...

The Professor says

Anyone that understands a little about physics knows that fires cannot bring steel framed buildings down.

What do you know about physics?

These are two examples of Bigsby being an absolute troll, a useless troll. I believe he is the most useless human being that has ever been conceived by a very disappointed mother. I wish we could have warned her.

It's an example of me being a troll is it? Please explain. The Professor claimed that "Even Bigsby will not admit that he believes office fires caused the utter destruction of WTC7." It's kind of him to say what he thinks I don't believe. Unfortunately, that is exactly what I believe happened along with some rather obvious additional factors like, er, planes being flown into the buildings.

How is asking him or you come to that what you know about physics being a troll? The pair of you know nothing about physics and yet you constantly bang on about the physics of what happened as if you are experts. That isn't trolling. That is pointing out the arrogance and stupidity of what you do.

And if my post is an example of being a troll according to you, then what exactly do you think your post is you delusional moron?

The Professor says

In case anyone forgets what we are talkling about. This was obviously not a "Controlled" Demolition.

So you've finally come to your senses.

bgamall4 says

Now, Cockroach, it is clear from the WTC7 videos that show the squibs, that the squibs are formed not by pressure of one floor falling onto another because they maintain their spacing. Also, the squibs maintain their spacing as well.

Am I supposed to laugh or cry at this stupidity?

bgamall4 says

Prof, you and the cockroach can see that the squibs remained symmetrical. Cockroach will scurry under a countertop when he sees this.

No, I will say that you've just hugely embarrassed yourself by posting up that video and claiming that those are (silent) squibs.

As Bgamall is happily deleting my response to his ridiculous squib video on his own deletion friendly thread, I'll post it here:

"So let me see. You think that a vertical column of windows shattering is what indicates the required squibs for bringing down that building? Ha, ha, ha. You really think that, do you? Not that it is directly connected to the internal collapse in that part of the building and the subsequent air pressure forcing out air and debris as the collapse progressed. Seriously, your argument is poor even for you. You really are claiming that the demolition experts placed a long vertical line of squibs up one side of the building to bring it down. That's your claim. And that apparently these squibs were silent when they were detonated. God, you are comedy gold."

The Professor says

His BS is self evident. Worse case he actually believes what he is saying, but I doubt it.

Arf. Of course I believe what I am saying. You smugly make your remark when it is you who are the one who believes silent controlled demolitions brought down three buildings. YOUR BS is self evident.

The Professor says

He will go round and round ignoring any evidence and latching onto trivial details. If he is as ignorant as he appears calling him stupid or a "cockroach" will not enlighten him.

You mean trivial details like why your controlled demolitions were not seen or heard on any videos. Trivial indeed!

The Professor says

Do you believe the official explanation that office fires caused a 47 story steel framed building to be utterly destroyed?

Yes, it caused beams to weaken and a progressive collapse to take place if that is what you mean by utterly destroyed.

You, in contrast, believe that a substantial and highly complex wiring system for a controlled demolition and all the material involved in it survived many hours of uncontrolled fires to magically then silently detonate, and for the normal evidence of said supposed CD to miraculously not appear on any of the videos pointing at the building.

bgamall4 says

Why would you post this idiocy when you see the compilation of demolitions that clearly show squibs, both horizontal andvertical play an important role in demolition? Do you eat stupid cereal for breakfast? What is making you so retarded, Cockroach?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps because all the demolitions you posted up made a noise and looked nothing like WTC7. How's that for starters?